User talk:Matias Affolter

February 2022
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Pixel art. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Fieryninja (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Please expect myself to engage a procedure in Wikipedia to sue you for vandalism, code source powering the live version is the unbeatable proofs of the existence of the software and its functionalities, please common, you can read what established media are saying and what anyone can on wikipedia, you can verify if the source code shows their functionality instead of wasting energy to SYSTEMICALLY removing an entry in this pixel art page of wikipedia while you are not involved in Art, Pixel Art, nor even Information Technology in general. More than that, code is the piece of work itself, the creator and the publisher when it is on GitHub. 9K contributions makes you more expected to be reliable on common sense than worthy of NPOV when you exercise an action which isn't worthy of any justice nor common sense? I respect not pity nor people unworthy justice, be aware for this action to subvert the strong will be remembered against you.

Stop the Pixel Art vandalism
If Pixa.pics ever gains notability, it will be naturally integrated into Wikipedia by its users. Wikipedia is not a promotional mechanism for your software. You have supplied no citations or proof that the software is notable enough to be listed in the Wikipedia article. Stop trying to use an encyclopedia as a publicity stunt.

Github licenses are not proof of notability, that's not how GitHub works. The purpose of the software table we have added at the bottom of the Pixel Art page is to serve as a quick overview of the most notable software used for years consistently by thousands of pixel-artists.

You will only damage the image of the product and your account with this. ClockworkChemist (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Systemic removal of viable & finished project proves notability
Wikipedia is: * Neutral * Technical * Logical * Mindful

It doesn't needs to rely on opinions to know its notability it can also rely on technical aspects as code proves and systemic willful criticism of notability which is notable by the way.

It is not notable and it is not relevant.
Pixa.pics offers no relevant unique features that aren't contained by the other software in the list, and it has orders of magnitudes less users. It simply isn't a known pixelart software. It doesn't even show up in most search engines, and there's practically no content made within it. That's what "notable" means in this case.

It doens't belong here, that's why we keep deleting it. Stop adding your product to wikipedia. You have a giant bias towards it, probably because it is your creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content

ClockworkChemist (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is OBJECTIVELY viable just like all entries.
You dispose a subjective proof of notability, alexa rank isn't specified to this Wikipedia page, it is not about user-base size comparison, it belongs to viable AKA notable software written for pixel art editing, you are simply coming from a chaotic state of mind, not giving objective reasons except both "disruption" added with a "offers no relevant unique features that aren't contained by the other software in the list" aside proving you being in conflict with multiple irrational beliefs and POV. Like the behavior of assassin, you are simply performing vandalism against an entry in a page you don't have the notability to speak of.

Warning Matias_Affolter (Feb 15)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I'm adding this warning to your talk page so we can discuss the changes you want to make to the Pixel Art section before this goes too far. I firmly believe Pixa.pics doesn't belong in the article, because it is a new software that hasn't yet gained any relevance. It has less than a few hundred search results, all looping back to your own blogsite and social media (As far as we know it may even be dangerous software). I also suspect that it is related to an NFT scheme, and not any artistic purpose. There are hundreds of raster graphics and bitmap editors out there, but simply being functional does not automatically mean they should be included in the english wikipedia. Only a handful are notable,a nd they are either really popular software, or they were at some point.

Perhaps some other elements in the Pixel Art section require more citations, but they are there because many of their users recognise them and have added them through time, precisely because they are notable.

I could right now start coding an editor, make it functional, and available online: Any programmer can create software, but just existing doesn't make it worthy of being placed among well-known programs such as Aseprite or Graphics Gale. Being proud of your creation doesn't make it notable, relevant or adequate for an encyclopedia.

Pixa pics does not belong in the article, at least at its current state. If you don't cease this behaviour I will file a report.

ClockworkChemist (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)



Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I am kindly letting you know that I'm about to file a report because of your response to the last warning and vandalism in Pixel Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClockworkChemist (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes vandalism is a chaotic force, not a creative one, please does not only discard a new project bringing value to this nice page of theses men of Wikipedia.

February 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for the motive to spam or advertise

 * Hello again! For context, I'm one of the editors working currently in the Pixel Art article. I didn't think I would be getting involved with this again but you are quoting my edits directly, even though I'm not the only editor that was agains't your vandalism, I wasn't even the first one to warn you about what you were doing.


 * Most of what you are saying here is irrelevant to the case or has already been addresed in the talk pages, but I just want to point out an interesting detail: You just said "I claimed being not linked in anyway with both this project and money" But that's a flat-out lie, you even have a written statement in your main user page claiming that you have conflicts of interest with Pixa.Pics. You have no edits or contributions to wikipedia except for this publicity stunt, and your username is the exact same username as the accounts that own the GitHub and social media for the Pixa Pics project. You are obviously the owner of the software trying to use an encyclopedia as promotional material (Like Fieryninja pointed out days ago).


 * We can't call relevant a software that, as it stands today, is almost impossible to find online, doesn't appear in most search engines, has less than 500 total results (most of which link back to your own places, or are complete missmatches) and practically no content or relevant artists working within it. If it ever becomes a huge success and people start using it and talking about it, I'll take my hat off to you and accept the correction, but until that happens it doesn't belong in the english encyclopedia. None of us have nothing agains't you, it just doesn't belong in this site.
 * Sure, Perhaps a few more entries should be revised as well (Like pikopixel),and I'll be sure to go through them. But we have to start with the most obvious case of misplacement, which is Pixa.pics
 * ClockworkChemist (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Answers to ClockworkChemist: Ok we can't find it online, ok fair enough, its not like waiting that CNN open their editorial team for me! The project is for non-profit and more than that no, just like I bet PixelORama also regards it the same way, the page /pixel_art is a a body of content ensouled in a domain of thinking which I am not linked to it as something else than an art and is of the public domain, my POV is neutral regarding it, just like a users with a contribution to my project could have, (no money). Answers to 331dot I have no vested interest in vandalism for any art, except on the draft page pixa.pics I have vested interest to have a good page for a project I see as positive since it is mine. I propose to regarding the Pixa.Pics draft page, asking someone who has a status equivalent to user and not contributor, and for the pixel_art page add a section where there is pixelorama for example with pixapics too in the free software list, while some would be in the paid software list, extending the mindset which is to share and inform with the one of professionalism and open-source. Yes based on the mail I sent to wikipedia they asked me if I was paid for my edits, and it is not the case for the pixel art page but the pixa.pics page, yes it is my work (paid not by the pix.pics org but by the creation of another 100% independent project). I withdraw my claim that it has been willful obstruction of fair project through vandalism, it was only a human error. 331dot My solution is to by then is to only access the talk page to diligently ask for a quick review and edit once it will be ok.

NPOV & Mediation

 * Hello, It's ClockworkChemist again, since you keep bringing me up. I used to think that this discussion was just a case of someone trying to get free publicity by placing their software in wikipedia: Now, after so much back and forth, I'm starting to think that this could actually a dangerous or malicious piece of software. We know nothing about it and it doesn't show up anywhere that you haven't placed yourself. It's so strange that you created this account and are making up excuses non-stop just to get the name appearing anywhere in the encyclopedia, you no longer seem to care where. It's almost like you are trying to use wikipedia to make your software appear safe or reliable. It is also obviously related to an NFT scheme, as seen here. It seems to be blocked in most search engines, and the only justification for its notability that the owner has provided is "the source code". But what does that even mean? Whatever is written in the code doesn't make your software a relevant editor used by pixelartists. We don't have a page for every single GitHub project in existance just because they are code. It isn't notable software and it doesn't belong here. All the other software in the list is mentioned in Lospec's blog, which isn't the strongest citation, but at least they have one, and it shows they are functional, non-malicious pixel editors that actual artists have used in the past to create Pixel Art.
 * I urge any editor reading this to be careful about any mention of Pixa.pics in the english Wikipedia from now on, as the owners account (Matias_Affolter) seems suspiciously biased towards its promotion, and we know nothing about it or its safety as a software.
 * ClockworkChemist (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok no problem, I will only participate in talks this I have the right to if it regards my project I am sure, yes more eyes more secure it equals the basis of open-source, no blacklist isn't valuable IMHO.

Blacklist suggestion for pixa.pics
I am letting you know that I have filed a suggestion to add pixa.pics to the list of blacklisted external links in wikipedia, due to your continued spam of the site and behaviour, our lack of assurance about its safety/origin, and the whole discussion that has scalated from your attempts to vandalize the Pixel Art article.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#pixa.pics

ClockworkChemist (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Unblock - Will use dialog/talk instead of force edit
Yamla I don't think my intention is spam or advertising at all, it was an information war / editing.