User talk:Knoterification

Welcome!
Hello, Knoterification, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Cândido da Fonseca Galvão, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ƬheStrike  Σagle   15:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Cândido da Fonseca Galvão


A tag has been placed on Cândido da Fonseca Galvão requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   15:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Karl von Kosertiz
Hi, I'm FloNight. Knoterification, thanks for creating Karl von Kosertiz!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for creating the Karl von Kosertiz. The article needs sources. Could you please either add them to the article or list them on the talk page. Thanks,

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 06:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Etymology of the neighbourhoods of Rio de Janeiro concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Etymology of the neighbourhoods of Rio de Janeiro, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pedro II of Brazil. 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 that 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. Laser brain   (talk)  16:44, 5 June 2016 (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.

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. Laser brain  (talk)  17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. --John (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Etymology of the neighbourhoods of Rio de Janeiro


Hello, Knoterification. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Etymology of the neighbourhoods of Rio de Janeiro".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Puffin  Let's talk! 08:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello, I'm Marianna251. I noticed that in this edit to Veja (magazine), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Marianna251TALK 15:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Veja (magazine), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Marianna251TALK 15:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Teardrop Nirvana— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have marked the page as a hoax.Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (List of mammals of Desengano State Park) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of mammals of Desengano State Park, Knoterification!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Please cite the full reference, and refer to the year of publication so readers appreciate how up-to-date the species list is."

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Louis XIV of France, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Jun 2020
Hello. It appears that one of your recent edits of the racial views of Winston Churchill deleted all the content on the page. without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Corey 04:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreymwamba (talk • contribs)

Disputed tag and disruptive editing over at 'Racial views of Winston Churchill'
Hi - you may have noticed that I've removed the disputed tag you added to the article Racial views of Winston Churchill, and have reverted your previous edits to the article removing a large section of the article's content.

Since you haven't added an adjoining discussion to the article's Talk page, I've reverted your edit restoring the Disputed tag, as there are no details for other editors to work from actually explaining exactly what about the article is disputable. Unless you can give a meaningful and well-explained reason as to why the tag should be a part of the article, it will be removed should you add it again.

Your edits - removing large sections of the article's content - have also been reverted. Please do not edit disruptively again. Thank you --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Racial views of Winston Churchill. You will have to stop whitewashing this article--the edit history clearly shows you are not afraid to edit war over it, but butchering the lead in your argumentative "contextualizing" of the subject matter proves you put argument over content. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - if you haven't already, see this - I don't think a warning has done an awful lot. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Racial views of Karl Marx


A tag has been placed on Racial views of Karl Marx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/marx-and-engelss-theory-of-history-making-sense-of-the-race-factor(f0ccb30e-543b-4e8e-ac5e-9e90baa1d0f7).html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Racial views of Winston Churchill; 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.''Time to stop warring. You are already in blockable territory, editing against three other editors.'' Drmies (talk) 21:09, 22 June 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.

Hasn't worked - my edit just got reverted again. Any tips on how to ask for a page to be protected? I'm unfamiliar with the process. Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Racial views of Karl Marx for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Racial views of Karl Marx is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Racial views of Karl Marx until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -  Harsh  15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yefim Dreitzer moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Yefim Dreitzer, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. While he appears to be notable as per WP:NSOLDIER, articles need reliable sources, which geni.com is not. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

From the Elliot Page Talk discussion
Ali was born and raised in Louisville, Kentucky; Ali was first directed toward boxing by Louisville police officer and boxing coach Joe E. Martin,[43] who encountered the 12-year-old fuming over a thief's having taken his bicycle; Ali grew up amid racial segregation. There simply isn't any rule followed in that article that would require use of the name in the text that he used at the time. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, so we basically can use any name at any time?
 * In the case of non-trans people, the explicit rule (MOS:COMMONNAME) is officially just about article titles, so the COMMONNAME can presumably be used at any time but other names can (not must) be used where contextually appropriate.
 * In the case of Trans people, names - not pronouns, which are covered by MOS:GENDERID - are subject to three rules so far, by community consensus:
 * 1) if a deadname wasn't used (voluntarily) by a BLP subject during the period when they are notable, we don't include it at all;
 * 2) if a deadname was used by a BLP subject during their period of notability, we should include it at least once in their bio article;
 * 3) don't be a dick.
 * Those three rules are recorded in and around MOS:DEADNAME, and a current RfC (spun out of the Elliot Cage page, but general in scope) may produce more specific guidance about the use of deadnames in articles other than the main bio article (such as Page's films).
 * The repeatedly-expressed consensus of WP editors is that trans issues are different from other name changes, so additional rules are required. Newimpartial (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Don't be authoritarian. 2.I don't see why the sensibilities and issues of famous transgender people should be considered morally superior than the issues of other famous people. 3. Freddy Mercury was bothered by the public exposition of his HIV status, should we delete that information? Bobby Fischer would certainly prefer if we didn't talk about his Jewish origins, should we not talk about it?


 * These are entirely non-sequitur issues. (1) I don't have any (individual) power here, and (2) you are simply disagreeing with a very strong consensus of WP editors, repeatedly expressed. I'm not sure there is anything more I can tell you. Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The current debate showed clearly there is no consensus. The voting revealed editors have many different views.


 * I'm not confident that you understand WP:CONSENSUS. Frankly, you might be more comfortable in some other collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanction Notification
FYI.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Yefim Dreitzer


Hello, Knoterification. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yefim Dreitzer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

May 2021
Your recent editing history at Dorothy Kuya shows that you are currently 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. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Laplorfill (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Population History of Indigenous Peoples
Please, use the talk page, per WP:BRD. Please stop trying to have a conversation in the reversion diffs. If you do that, we’re both going to hurry past the 3 revert rule and then we’ll both be in violation of policy. If you want to add something about this, create a new section on the article’s talk page and explain it there. I will engage with you there. —Hobomok (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice
(The previous notice expired six months ago.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Tetizeraz -  (talk page)  16:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Romani people. 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. Do not remove citations and sourced material in articles just because you personally disagree with it. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2022 (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.

WP:ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tetizeraz -  (talk page)  23:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You can respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Slow edit warring on Mulatto
On Mulatto, you repeatedly tried to add "in English" to the statement that the use of the term is offensive. This is called "slow edit warring", but can still be considered edit warring (see WP:EW: it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.) Please remember that edit warring may lead to a block, often via a discussion at WP:ANI/3RR. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the matter on Mulatto is solved now. Don't let yourself be intimidated by users which use the above (and below) 'passive threatening'-style to get their POV in an article. Vlaemink (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mulatto. 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. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2022 (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.
 * Please stop trying to intimidate users into accepting your personal POV or preferences. Either participate in the discussion @Talk:Mulatto or leave the article (and this user) alone. If you continue to refuse to participate in the discussion constructively while edit-warring and continuing to spam personal pages like this one with threats or it will be you who will be reported for disruptive editing. Vlaemink (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See my reply at User_talk:Vlaemink. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From the continuation of this section below you may see that I was not the only one criticizing (not "intimidating") this user. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pretendian. 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. Yuchitown (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * 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.

Your recent editing history at Pretendian shows that you are currently 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. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. oncamera (talk page) 06:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you are doing at Pretendian and several other articles, in addition to not engaging on talk, or participating in the collaborative process. 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:. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

May 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pretendian. 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. And now you are edit-warring again, on the same article, over the same link, with the same rationale, after being blocked for this before. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:32, 7 May 2023 (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.

See WP:See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." Tangentially. Not identical. Anything tangentially related that may be of interest to those reading up on the topic. Editors in good standing discussed this with you on user talk and feel that the link is related to the topic, so you do not have consensus to once again edit war to remove it. I don't know why you are so obsessed with this link that you are willing to risk losing your ability to edit the 'pedia for this. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello! I'm Peaceray. Your recent edit(s) to the page Dominant minority appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Your edit runs counter to the information in the citations. Time.com writes Around 56% of Brazilians identify as Black—the largest population of African descent outside of Africa. A Brazilian source, Folha de S.Paulo, wrote blacks and browns, who represent 56% of the Brazilian population. Please explain why your opinion outweighs these sources, & what sources you are using.'' Peaceray (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would also advise that you read the verifiability, not truth essay, which states in a nut graph: Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2023 (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. Tetizeraz -  (talk page)  02:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Brazilian state trees


The article List of Brazilian state trees has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Found this article while working on articles for Brazilian state symbols and it looks like many of these entries aren't official Brazilian state trees. For example, I have not been able to verify the trees for Acre, Alagoas, Amapá, Amazonas, or Bahia"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Brazilian state birds


The article List of Brazilian state birds has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Found this article while working on articles for Brazilian state symbols and it looks like many of these entries aren't official Brazilian state birds. Ornithos isn't a reliable source (the [|about us section of the website] shows that it's a personal blog and the Tocantins state bird is different."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BaduFerreira (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)