User talk:DarwIn

Welcome!

Hello, DarwIn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RafaAzevedo ^msg 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olá

Hey there! No one'd welcomed you yet? ;) RafaAzevedo ^msg 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, yeah, you bet - although somehow I don't think the evil forces are allowed to roam that freely around here... Poor Wiki-pt, still has such a long way to go! Abs, RafaAzevedo ^msg 21:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... now that is definitely weird... And it would be absolutely shocking as well. But I agree, there's not enough in the moment to "catch it by the tail". :) RafaAzevedo ^msg 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUL

Hopefully it will start showing up soon. Rename is low priority for the Wikipedia servers, so it might take a while. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madeira

Madeira IS of the coast of Africa :-)Galf (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monoicous

I accidentally slipped and hit "enter" before completing my edit comments, so I'm posting here. the Portuguese article covers both plants and animals, and deals primarily with the subjects covered at the article for Monecious. The article on Monoicous covers sexuality in haploid plants, with extraneous information about Monoecious added by well-meaning, but misguided, editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but do keep in mind that English distinguishes between monoicous (in haploid organisms) and monoecious (in diploid organisms). This distinction may not exist in other languages. For the English Wikipedia, we have a separate article for the first one, but the second is covered (for plants) in the article on Plant sexuality. The term monoicous is used primarily by bryologists, and only occasionally by pteridologists discussing gametophytes.

There is an enormous difference in the underlying biology. Plants that are monoecious produce their pollen and ovules on the same plant, but these have different genetic content as a result of meiosis. The pollen and ovules differ in genetic content from each other and from their (diploid) parent. However, plants that are monoicous produce eggs and sperm from the same (haploid) individual, so that all egg and sperm cells produced by that individual are genetically identical because the (haploid) gametophyte generates these gametes by mitosis. A monoicous organism thus produces both egg and sperm, but all the egg and sperm have identical genetic material with each other and with the parent. Some bryological texts fail to make this distinction, and sloppily use the term monoecious when they actually mean monoicous. No bryophytes are actually monoecious, since none of them are heterosporangiate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NowComons

Hi! I noticed that you transfer a lot of files to Commons. Nice :-) However, I noticed that files on Commons still has the "BotMoveToCommons" template on. It would be a great help if you "checked" the files on Commons after the transfer and perhaps also marked the files as reviewed on en-wiki. You can see here what a good review includes. That way the files will end up in Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons or a subcategory with your name on. That makes it easy for the admins to spot the files that has been checked by a user. --MGA73 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MGA73,

I appreciate your suggestion, but I'm still not very comfortable with reviewing files, and I was thinking as well that it's better when two users check the file instead of one. So, when I see that someone checks one of the files I transfer, I look what he does and do some cleaning up afterwards. I always categorize them, though, so they are ready for use in Commons even if they have not been checked. Thanks for the links, I'll have a look on them. Cheers, --Darwinius (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He he. That is ok. You learn it by trying :-) I will do a few and you can see what I do. Do not be afraid to make mistakes. Admins should check before they delete the file but it is a good help if all info has been corrected. You are always welcome to ask if you find some file that is "hard to fix". --MGA73 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My worst fear is that I could be transferring some copyvios to Commons unsuspectingly, as I'm still new to all this licensing thing. Actually, today I transferred four files which I suspect they could be copyvios. They are:

File:Alex Snitker.jpg - No source provided?
File:Bergetiger.jpg - Unknown online source?
File:Anicius Olybrius.png - Source is an online webpage, don't know if OLD applies here, since that's not a 2-D image.
File:Oatay.jpg - Image is similar to the one on his obituary I found with thineye, but do not seems to be equal. Source alleged to be the person who uploaded it?

Could you help me with those, please?--Darwinius (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes those four does not look good. I will have to come back later - I'm on my way out of the door. I deleted three of the files on Commons because they were the "worst" ones. That way you should not get "warnings" on Commons while I'm away :-) We can easily undelete if source is corrected. Without a good source we can not check if the license is ok. Therefore the images should be marked as possibly unfree before they are transfered to Commons. If the source is fixed and they do not get deleted them they can be moved to Commons. The coin if PD-old but we do not know if the photographer has released the copyrights to the photo. In cases like that we have to look for a message on the webpage saying something about the license. If there is no free license mentioned then we can not use the photos. --MGA73 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! The user who uploaded that coin just marked another one for upload on Commons: File:Anastasius II.png. How should I mark this file, so that it isn't uploaded while the source is not fixed?--Darwinius (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a permission to upload files from that http://www.cngcoins.com - see Commons:Template:CNG :-) See you later! --MGA73 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!--Darwinius (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work with the coin from CNG. I deleted the en-wiki file now. And you also marked the other files as possibly unfree - nice. Now we just have to see if any information shows up.

If you find any other images that looks "no good" you could "PUF" them so information can be fixed or file deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Just one more thing, what do I do with the "upload log"? Sometimes I see people removing it when reviewing the file.--Darwinius (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I normally leave it. It should be there if the file is "own work" but if the source is some website (like Flickr or NASA etc.) then it is not really needed. --MGA73 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, File:Audientzen.jpg is another non-free image that should not have been moved. (X! · talk) · @847 · 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I missed that one. :S --Darwinius (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect reversion

I have undone your incorrect reversion of a constructive edit. Please be more careful in the future. Many IP edits are constructive. Cunard (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cunard, thanks for advising me, I guess I didn't understand what he was trying to do there (it was a somewhat weird edition, with comments and signature in the article), and reverted by mistake. No need to worry about the IPs, I love them, I hug them, I'm infatuated by them. :) --Darwinius (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks, Darwinius, for all you do on Wikipedia—especially removing vandalism from my User Page. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thanks for uploading a Sepia picture of Ameer Sardar Dost Mohammad Khan Baloch. Karim jan (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! I thought it looked prettier and clearer than the BW version in the article, I'm glad you liked it as well. :) --Darwinius (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate finding

Thank you for the portrait for Janis Rozentāls. I was under a similar assumption regarding the photograph (public domain), however, in doing research for content I am adding to lobh.org, I confirmed (yesterday) that Mārtiņš Lapiņš, the photographer, passed away in 1954, meaning the entry of his works into the public domain at the start of the year following the 70th anniversary of his death will not occur until January 1, 2025. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Renato Seabra

The article Renato Seabra has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Greetings, I recently saw the elimination of a part of a series of images that I had uploaded a different article. While some were not of my own work and I admit it was a mistake, but also some images that were borrastes own work as in the case of the article you deleted the Modelo, some in the article of Punto Fijo and another in Miss Universe 2013(Articles in Spanish). It seems totally unfair, I understand the importance doubt because the other images, but you must never generalize that affected other issues with images that have the license to be in the article. I suggest a reversal of the edition. Jaam0121 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaam. In Commons the precautionary principle is sovereign. Therefore, if there is reasonable doubt about an origin of a certain image (and others use it even more strictly, as in "lack of proof its yours"), it must be deleted. Nevertheless, you can name the images you want restored, and I may have a look on them. Or you can ask for an undeletion at the proper Commons board. In this specific case, I will not reverse any of my deletions without reasonable proof that they are indeed your files, due to your other uploads.--Darwinius (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ok, I understand that some were not my own but others if they were. Like, "Modeling, _Modelo.jpg" belonged to this article -> ^[1], this image is from my work.

As you recall? Or you need to load them again commons? Which is not possible because you block me.

Jaam0121 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE I NEED AN ANSWER.

Jaam0121 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cacongo (municipality)

Darwin,

Cacongo (municipality) and Cacongo, there ER6 here? rsrsrs Mvictor ^Talk 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelo Victor: Hey Marcelo. Actually those articles are about two different entities, one is the municipality, and the other is the town (teh seat of the municipality, which has the same name). At the moment we do not have the town article in pt-wiki. Cheers, --Darwinius (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Darwinius. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simon James Philby Photo 1.jpg

You believe that the recent email (VRTS ticket # 2017062610011772 ) is sufficient ? - FlightTime (open channel) 13:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime, at first sight I couldn't see anything suspicious on it, and the PD release seems to be OK - but as you were the original owner you may know better. If you believe it is better to ask for more data, please take over that ticket and do as you believe is best.--Darwinius (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olá

Você pode rever o bloqueio na minha conta na Wikipédia lusófona? Creio que foi um engano de sua parte. O revolucionário aliado (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

Hi Darwin. To reply to [1], my statement was a very simplified one (when I try to make nuanced explanations, they are often ignored here). I thought that was happening in some of the discussions on ptwp, but I think that may be due to my limited knowledge of Portuguese at the moment. I'm currently learning the language, and I hope to contribute more to ptwp in the future as a result. For now, I'm quite enjoying contributing through Wikidata-enabled infoboxes, since Wikidata is inherently multilingual so it makes cross-language contributions much easier. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: Hello. Since I've never perceived you as being active or involved with the community at pt.wiki, I was truly appalled that you reduced all the debate taking place there to that easy demagogy that we were just copying the Übermensch wiki.en. I believe, as we say in Portuguese, you "got pregnant from your ears", and have taken your conclusions from conversations you've heard, without checking if it was actually true or not. Many people at wiki.pt, including me, actually abhor a number of aspects of wiki.en policies, and in general, while we use wiki.en as a reference - as everybody else, from Commons to the very small wikis, as it is *the* matrix project - we have been historically able to separate the waters, and in general we followed a distinct path from the one in wiki.en (unfortunately, in some aspects), and the pt.wiki community is completely distinct from the one in wiki.en, quite often with different philosophies and different approaches. Your contribution at wiki.pt is more than welcome, but please, don't treat us as uncritical simpletons, unable to think for ourselves. I can tell you that my impression is that only me, and Jbribeiro1, perhaps, are actually closely following the debate here, and while my reaction was assumedly influenced by it, most of the reactions of the other people there were completely independent of it, starting with the first questionings by Mr. Fulano.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DarwIn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DarwIn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DarwIn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogue of Funchal

Hi Darwin

I dont wish to get into an edit war with you so lets discuss your changes, if you are familiar with Synagogue architectue you will have noticed that the there are a few things that are noticable about this building that no other in Funchal has, star of David in the window, the roof edging which is typical of Synagogues as the one in the photo below in Melila shows

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-synagogue-or-zoruah-by-the-architect-enrique-nieto-melillaspain-31338982.html

Plus should you want there are links on the Portuguese version that have links to articles which may help you, but you know this as you have editing the Portuguese version at the same time.

https://www.dnoticias.pt/impressa/hemeroteca/diario-de-noticias/455679-funchal-quer-classificar-sinagoga-e-cemiterio-NLDN455679

I look forward to your reply--Rockysantos (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockysantos: there is not a single contemporaneous source which identify that building as a synagogue, which is rather impossible, as a synagogue with such a striking architecture would never pass discreetly. The architecture is clearly Moorish Revival, which while being common in places like Lisbon, is rather unusual in Funchal, but is not any giveaway for it having been a "synagogue". On the opposite, all information about that building, even the most remote one, describes it as a commercial and residential building. As for the outlandish affirmation of Ventura Terra being the architect of a building that apparently don't even existed at that time, and for it to be "inspired" in the Lisbon synagogue, which has a very different architectural style - Eclectic, not Moorish Revival - they are plainly absurd. Anyone looking at the two buildings would notice they have nothing to do with each other, apart being sort of "quaint" and having a gable. The things in the gable you say are "typical of synagogues", are simply Moorish merlons, very common in both old and new Moorish and Moorish revival architecture(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Palacete_Ribeiro_da_Cunha example). The city council itself has the classification process stale since at least 2015, for lack of any evidence that it ever was a synagogue. So, please, stop describing that building as a real synagogue. It's an interesting building, due to its unusual architecture, but it has nothing to do with what have been claimed. Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, from oral information I've collected, but still unconfirmed by the documentation, the building seems to have been commissioned by a local Jewish family, which owned the plot, as a commercial/residential building, sometime before the 1950s. Maybe that's why the misidentification with a synagogue had some success initially (and is a good explanation for the star of David and the unusual gable, even if you take them for more than a mere architectural features, and also for some old people describing it as "the building of the Jews" - because it indeed belonged to a Jewish family), but now it's completely stale, due to the total lack of evidence supporting that affirmation. Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also: There was indeed a Jewish community living in Funchal since the 19th-century, but it was very small. Even at the cemetery most of the burials are from tourists and expatriates, and only a very small fraction is from the Jewish residents. There is not a single record of ever existing a building working as a synagogue in Funchal. There was an extensive article on this Jewish community published in Islenha some years ago, and it doesn't make any mention to a place of cult, let alone an entire building built for and working as a synagogue. The closer to a synagogue we have here is a room in a building at Ladeira do Socorro which during II WW was used as a praying room by Gibraltarian families of Jewish faith which were housed there, though that one generally passes unnoticed. Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear DarwIn,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi DarwIn,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI DarwIn,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox de Quintal

Comente lá.

Assinado

Fox de Quintal (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why did my account get blocked from editing the wiki article of Portugalidade. There was IA SE DESENVOLVENDO INSTEAD OF VINHA SE DESENVOLVENDO. IA IS INFORMAL AS YOU KNOW. ARE YOU A WOKE SOLDIER? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM????? Wikipedista88 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedista88 Reincarnation of Salazar? Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation assistance

Hello, I'm KB from Binance. I came across your username as someone who can help with Portuguese translations. I'm looking for help creating a translation of the Richard Teng article, which I worked with editors at Articles for Creation to create here. I have posted a Portuguese version and had an editor say it looked good, but they have not responded since. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and if everything is good, create the translated article on the Portuguese Wikipedia? Because I have a financial conflict, I don't directly create articles related to Binance.

Thanks so much. Let me know if you have any questions. KB at Binance (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ [2]

[1] [2]

[1]