Boas noites, caro compatriota,
já escrevi na "talk" do artigo em resposta à sua intervenção. Neste artigo (eu não concordo, mas é assim que se faz na WP), todos os nomes dos clubes estão comprimidos na história, portanto escrever "FC Porto" quando nunca é feito na mesma é contraditório.
Nunca quis patrulhar nada nem ser "iluminado", estou aqui há 16 anos e só quero ajudar. Atentamente, resto de boa semana. RevampedEditor ( talk) 01:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The issue is not that the addition is or is not adequately sourced but rather whether it is a criticism of economics as a discipline. It is not obvious that it is. Criticism of central banks etc or of their operating theories (e.g., monetarism) belongs in those articles, not this one. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cristiano Ronaldo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)§ion=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello Aarfrunzindin! I have to admit that I did not expect such a friendly response. The process whereby Diocles' history was inflated with convincing details and conclusions is probably worth an article in itself - based, perhaps, on the very rapid dissemination of a rather wobbly but highly entertaining original article and a series of truths, half-truths and unprofessional guesses from a professional historian who should (and maybe even does, by now) know better. There's a resounding silence on the matter in current scholarship! Haploidavey ( talk) 10:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wagner Group rebellion § "Failed rebellion". IanDBeacon ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Russo–Ukrainian war, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, me again. I find your statement about autistic editors on your userpage to be deeply inappropriate, bordering on hate speech, and I request you remove it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
changing snowflake-disrupting wording after has fallen victim to annoying janitorial stalking and bullyingwas rude too. You appear to have changed the minimum needed to not risk a block at ANI. That's your choice I suppose, but I am disappointed that you have not embraced the spirit of WP:CIVIL more. Regards. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Boas noites, caro compatriota,
já escrevi na "talk" do artigo em resposta à sua intervenção. Neste artigo (eu não concordo, mas é assim que se faz na WP), todos os nomes dos clubes estão comprimidos na história, portanto escrever "FC Porto" quando nunca é feito na mesma é contraditório.
Nunca quis patrulhar nada nem ser "iluminado", estou aqui há 16 anos e só quero ajudar. Atentamente, resto de boa semana. RevampedEditor ( talk) 01:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The issue is not that the addition is or is not adequately sourced but rather whether it is a criticism of economics as a discipline. It is not obvious that it is. Criticism of central banks etc or of their operating theories (e.g., monetarism) belongs in those articles, not this one. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cristiano Ronaldo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)§ion=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello Aarfrunzindin! I have to admit that I did not expect such a friendly response. The process whereby Diocles' history was inflated with convincing details and conclusions is probably worth an article in itself - based, perhaps, on the very rapid dissemination of a rather wobbly but highly entertaining original article and a series of truths, half-truths and unprofessional guesses from a professional historian who should (and maybe even does, by now) know better. There's a resounding silence on the matter in current scholarship! Haploidavey ( talk) 10:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wagner Group rebellion § "Failed rebellion". IanDBeacon ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Russo–Ukrainian war, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, me again. I find your statement about autistic editors on your userpage to be deeply inappropriate, bordering on hate speech, and I request you remove it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
changing snowflake-disrupting wording after has fallen victim to annoying janitorial stalking and bullyingwas rude too. You appear to have changed the minimum needed to not risk a block at ANI. That's your choice I suppose, but I am disappointed that you have not embraced the spirit of WP:CIVIL more. Regards. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.