User talk:Dornicke

Re:Discussion page
No worries about creating the talk page. Normally, discussion pages of articles would remain red links until editors bring forward some issues about these pages. (You might start the talk page simply by editing it and save the page, really!) About editors who could be interested in arts or museum, perhaps you might post your questions at the talk page of WikiProject Arts if you need help from users who are knowledgeable about art-related topics. If this project is inactive, you might ask some editors in the list of participants directly, or you might also request help from one of its sub project (like WikiProject Architecture). You're doing very well in expanding and improving São Paulo Museum of Art. Thanks for your contributions, :) Peacent 10:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Museum name
Hi Dornicke (talk), I think for now the best idea is to use Museum of Contemporary Art, University of São Paulo, although the original Portuguese name is ok too. I think the translated English version is fine, and will be more easily grasped here. I hope this helps. Modernist (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion
Sorry for the mess, my answer is here Aloxe (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Hey, I've just seen the Museu Nacional de Belas Artes article and want to congratulate you for the work you did to showcase Brazilian heritage in Wiki-en by expanding it. In January 2007, in another life (as User:Fsouza), I created it as a small draft, and it's great to see that someone turned it into a wonderful article. I rarely come back to Wiki-en to see "my" old articles, and today I had this nice surprise. Best, --Fulviusbsas (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Dornicke; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule reminder
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.--MONGO 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring at Talk:September 11 attacks and agenda-driven screeds. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this exchange illustrates the institutional flavor of Wikipedia. I saw the discussion on the talk page and found it typical of the Wikipedia community. This user has it right; I agree with their assertions about that unfounded sentence in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.243.106 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more --Mannydantyla (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Alert
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Village pump (miscellaneous) are not for general discussion about unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ansh666 18:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at 9/11 conspiracy theories
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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

WP:AE
I've filed an RfE regarding your conduct here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
As a result of the WP:AE discussion referenced above, you are now topic-banned from the topic area of the 9/11 attacks and 9/11 conspiracy theories. The restriction is of indefinite duration and includes any edits relating to these topics, across all namespaces (both article content and discussions). This will be logged at Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. The WP:AE page contains information on how to appeal this sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Bilderberg Group, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Bilderberg Group.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Frans post no Itaú Cultural
Oi, Dornicke, bacana o trabalho sobre o Frans Post. Estamos em sintonia. Não são imagens ótimas, mas recentemente fotografei desenhos dele no Itaú Cultural. Talvez se interesse. Espero que esteja bem. --Joalpe (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Zhang Zhan
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Samsara 06:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Important notices
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of community-authorised general sanctions regarding Uyghur genocide
--OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
 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:. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Until you can convince the community that you are able to play nice with others you are blocked. For reference to any reviewing admins this is the discussion that lead up to this:. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Also blocked means blocked, editing as an IP is not allowed. You may not edit Wikipedia under any IP or username. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Which part of "I really don't care" you didn't get yet? It's English wikipedia's loss, not mine. I do not depend on you for anything. :) Dornicke (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , request a check user verification instead of blocking 3rd world users that have nothing to do with with the lousy justification that I'm using IP. I really have no interest in editing in this project. It's literally full of everything I despise the most. But you are blocking innocent people just because you're a  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornicke (talk • contribs) 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Dornicke,

This is to let you know that File:Pedro Américo - D. Pedro II na abertura da Assembléia Geral.jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 2, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-12-02. 200th anniversary of birth If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! ― Howard • 🌽33 01:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)