Jump to content

User talk:Chronus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello, Chronus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! The Ogre (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Template:Largest cities of Brazil

Please do not revert to that older version without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Celestra (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Largest cities of Brazil, you will be blocked from editing. We've been through this last year; simply reverting to a previous version without discussion is disruptive. The template is true to its source and contains no OR. Other editors have made improvements which are lost if you revert to that older version. Please develop a consensus on the template talk page before editing that template again. Celestra (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

This is the English Wikipedia, so, please, speak in English. Let's talk by topics.

There are four pictures related to São Paulo state now: one of the Brazilian National Laboratory of Synchrotron Light in Campinas, the other from the Museum of Portuguese language, the other from São Paulo city itself on demographics and the last one from a highway. Four pictures in an article that must tell a little bit about everything that is really important in a country. One state has four pictures while others suchs as Mato Grosso, Goiás, Acre, Rio Grande do Norte, Mato Grosso do Sul and many others have none. If you like São Paulo state vey much, that's wonderful, but other editors must like other states too and that doesn't matter.

Thre same goes to President Lula. Brazil had 35 presidents and only three a featured in the article: Getúlio Vargas; because he is considered the most important Brazilian of the 20th century (just as Pedro II is considered from the 19th century) even though he was a dictator; Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula for representing contemporary Brazil. Now you added a second picture of Lula while at least 32 other presidents (some very important like Geisel, who ended torture and the military dictatorship, or Juscelino Kubitscheck, who is considered one of the greatest Brazilian presidents). To me, that is ocnsidered nothing more than political propaganda as 2010 is a year of national elections but I will keep in mind that you were acting on good faith. Still, two pictures of one president doesn't make sense.

The picture of Pedro II in regalia doesn't make sense for several reasons. The first one is that the emperor himself hated the pomp of the monarchy and all simbols related to it. He always wore common clothes such as suit (terno) and the the crown and the imperial clothes only twice per year in the opening and closing of the Parliament out of obligation (a tradition still kept in Britain up to this day). The second reason is because the picture will make any reader who knows nothing about Brazilian history believe that we had a medieval culture until recently.

Last and not least, the article needs consistency and stability. If we keep changing the pictures everytime it will never be promoted to good or featured status. Taking all that in mind, I will revert your edit once more. However, as a proof of good will and of conciliation, I will keep three pictures that you added 9out of five): the one of the airport of Recife (as the one you removed was also from São Paulo), the one with the airplane , the one with Itaipu. I think that is fair enough. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Largest_cities_of_Brazil

Nice redesign. You may run into resistance on using space as a separator or about only having two pictures, but I think your new design is an improvement. Regards, Celestra (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

I noticed that you added content to the article Brazil, which was removed by other users, and you restored it 2 times. Have a care: this action may be considered an edit warring. You should consider using the talk page: explain your changes, what have you added and how does this benefit the article if compared with the previous state. The others would reply then their concerns about your edits, and perhaps you can come up to a version that you can all be content with. Don't worry if this means not restoring the material immediately, it is kept at the article history and may be retrieved at any time if needed. MBelgrano (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User Ninguém

I noticed you tried to make good changes in article Brazil but user Ninguéim tried to retain you.

This user is a troublemaker who doesn't like other users around, because he wants to manipulate the informations of those articles according to his personal wishes.

Don't give up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.196.47.10 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls

Hi, Heitor. It's probably better not to revert again, since there's a danger of edit warring. I have left a note on El rrienseolava's talk page advising him to stop adding the text without discussing it first. I've been busy in other areas and not paying close attention, so I'm not 100% sure what the issues are, but I'll try to take a look later today or tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Brazil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Moreno

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Favela, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Catarina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madrid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plaza Mayor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Expanded Metropolitan Complex of São Paulo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Explain Your Removal of Content

Dear Chronus, you have recently removed content from Megalopolis (city type) without explanation. I looked at your list of contributions and it appears you practically never leave an edit summary nor a comment on article talk pages to explain your deletion or addition of content. Please Explain Your Removal of Content on Megalopolis (city type). I also studied the history of your user talk page and it appears several other editors have posted similar warnings on your talk page over the years, all of which you have deleted.

Please note that you currently appear to have begun a revert cycle that may lead to an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Megalopolis (city type). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please visit Talk: Megalopolis (city type) and discuss your edits there. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deficit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Victor Lopes. I noticed that you made a comment on the pages Special:History/São Paulo and User talk:Thiagoreis leon that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Victão Lopes Fala! 07:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Aviso

Hello, this is the English-language Wikipedia, so please, use English even if Portuguese is our native language. I posted that warning because you attacked one user here and here. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you, Victão Lopes Fala! 17:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Se conhece os regulamentos, então aplique-os. Continue revertendo o outro editor (e mandando avisos) e eventualmente ele será bloqueado por insistir no erro, mas nunca chame a pessoa de "inútil", nem peça que ela "se recolha à sua insignificância". Eu sei que é difícil lidar, mas é uma questão de autocontrole, e você já deveria estar craque nisso pelos anos de trabalho na hostil Wikipédia lusófona. Não importa o ano em que aconteceu o outro ataque, ele também é errado e como ninguém reagiu, eu o embuti no aviso. Aqui na Wikipédia em inglês leva-se muito a sério a questão da civilidade, já me chamaram a atenção por bem menos que isso que você fez, então considere isso como um conselho também. Victão Lopes Fala! 18:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rio de Janeiro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copacabana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Cinema section in Brazil

Hi, thanks for contributing to the Cinema section I created in the article Brazil, it looks very good! I'm only curious as to why you moved it under Cuisine from below Literature. It's much closer to Literature than Cuisine, after all. Thanks. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 01:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited São Paulo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIL sanctions on November 2015 Paris attacks

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

LjL (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You're now on notice - please do not revert on the article again. Myself and LjL have begun discussing this on the talk page, where we would value your input. Thanks -- samtar whisper 16:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't even like these sanctions, but since I am bound to (and have been effectively limited by) them, I think it's fair to request a moratorium on any further reverts, since you are already at two. I have justified my one revert, straight from the edit summary: Christian symbols are inappropriate when neutral ones exist. You have justified yours with nothing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. LjL (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: Do not try justified your terrible job as editor with excuses like that. You put a sanction on me just because a photo! Congratulations! Chronus (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I put no sanction on you. I sent you a notice. Calling my articulated concerns "doing a terrible job as an editor" is honestly unwelcome. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page as asked. LjL (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copacabana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited São Paulo (state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial complex. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited São Paulo (state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wet 'n Wild. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Hi, thanks for creating this article. I'm wondering, did you copy content from 2016 Summer Olympics? In that case it would be appropriate to follow WP:CORRECTSPLIT, including adding Template:Split on both talk pages, for proper attribution of editor's contributions. Gap9551 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gap9551: In fact, I just transfer the content to the new article and left an abridged version in the main article. Chronus (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, splitting was a good idea. But you didn't attribute those editors' work in your edit summaries when removing content from the old article, or adding the content to the new article, a procedure described in WP:PROSPLIT. I've asked an administrator to add the attribution. No worries, that will fix it all. Gap9551 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcomed. Actually I'm still looking for second sources or better citations to established the best WP:NPOV as that section was redacted at first with a clear left-wing politic perception. I don't know of you share the idea with me but if not, Sorry. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited São Paulo (state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wet 'n Wild. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Overdetailed opening ceremony coverage

I trimmed it for a reason, and much the same reason you've been trimming down the concerns/controversies part: because we have a page with the full details already. Please justify your edits with proper summaries, especially if they involve the reversion of other peoples' edits. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Is not because there is a separate article about the opening ceremony that you need to reduce the content to a mere two paragraphs which say nothing about the ceremony. Moreover, for what reason you changed the picture? You do not decide things alone here. We are in a community of volunteers. Chronus (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an established format that was used on last year's articles too (see 2012_Summer_Olympics#Opening_ceremony, 2012_Summer_Paralympics#Opening_ceremony. It also feels like, in direct contradiction to your statement about being a "community of volunteers", that you are deciding things on behalf of everyone else. Also I switched the pictures because that's the one the main article on the ceremony was using. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: Everyone else?! I just saw you complaining about this aspect so far. Moreover, we do not necessarily have to use the same photograph of the main article because there is a huge acquis of images about that event. There is no problem to summarize the text, but do not have to leave just two sentences. Chronus (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: Furthermore, here you complain about a "lack of information on environmental actions by organizers", information that you deleted in your edition. I really do not understand that. Chronus (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I meant centralized. I was writing a new section right now. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Brazil

Hi. You are now at 3 reverts. Please no more reverts because a report has to be filed if this does not stop. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chronus. 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)

Template:Largest cities of Paraná

Please join in the discussion here. Your reverts and lack of discussion are concerning. GiantSnowman 17:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Information icon I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Edit summaries need to be in English please. NeilN talk to me 20:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chronus. 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)

December 2017

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Brazil 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 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 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN talk to me 00:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M41 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Only warning

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Union of South American Nations, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 177.68.126.118 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chronus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The alleged "edit warring" on the Unasur article was actually the reversal of obvious vandalism. The Unasur was not dissolved, neither part of its members nations left the organization. What happened was a suspension of activities (like summits) from some members countries until the election of a new Secretary General, but they maintained their membership (as can be seen in the Wikipedies in Portuguese and Spanish). So the editions that I reversed ([1], [2], [3]) in the article in question are wrong, just as this map. In addition, what is the point in blocking an experienced, committed publisher, registered since 2007, with no relevant history of editorial disputes because of completely justifiable reversals? And even if this were the case for an obvious edit war, why 1 month (!) would be a adequate punishment? This is a completely disproportionate. I demand revision of this administrative action. Chronus (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The edit warring does not fall under the vandalism exception to edit warring, as the dispute is over the content of the article. As such, I am declining this request. To be unblocked, you will need to agree not to edit war and tell the proper manner in which to resolve a dispute. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. 331dot (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chronus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I compromise myself not to enter in edit warring again and try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. I'm a experienced, committed editor, registered since 2007, with no relevant history of editorial disputes. I consider a 1 month block a disproportionate punishment for this case. Therefore, I ask for the reduction of the blocking period or its complete suspension, given my commitment to following the policies from now on. Chronus (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per discussion. Welcome back. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be a pain, but could you spell out in so many words what you will do instead? Explain WP:BRD in your own words? Sorry, we just need to be clear.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I would add that blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. As long as we can be assured that there will be no more disruption, you can be unblocked- and you can help to give that assurance through answering Dlohcierekim's question. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim and 331dot: I already gave this assurance and said what I will do instead of getting into editing wars: when I have a disputed edition, I will start a new topic on the article's discussion page and I will only make further changes until a consensus is reached. I understand that I disrespect the three-revert rule (3RR) and I undertake not to enter into this type of editorial conflict again. Chronus (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim and 331dot: Anyone? Chronus (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ferret: what do you think? 331dot (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Having mulled this for some time, I'm inclined to unblock, but would like to hear from Ferret and 331dot.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm satisfied. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry it takes so long, but I've made some bad unblocks.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: Reblocks are easy. If we get one productive editor out of five considered unblocks, it's worth it. --NeilN talk to me 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Block was just part of AIV patrol for me. Report came in, I saw two previous blocks for edit warring and what appeared to be yet more edit warring, so I did a longer block. If unblock reviewers are happy, I'm happy. -- ferret (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Golpe de 1964.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Golpe de 1964.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian economy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Few if any reliable sources are reliable sources for everything under the sun

It's not just the fact that newspapers sometimes misquote people or misinterpret them. One issue is whether they present the whole context, any disputes, questions, etc. The other is that for scientific discoveries we usually want to wait to see how they have been received, whether the authors have changed their minds between the newspaper report and publishing a peer reviewed article. If such an article exists, it's obviously better to use that then the media. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I should add that even if the NYT (which I subscribe to) had said that scientific studies etc, we should go find those studies. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

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.

Points to note:

  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.

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. Moxy (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

You previously promised never to engage in edit warring again. You have repeatedly engaged in edit wars since being unblocked. As this was the basis for your unblock, I have now blocked you indefinitely. I take no stand on whether your position was correct or not, only that you swore never to engage in edit wars again but have broken that promise. --Yamla (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: Indefinitely?! Are you simply banishing me from the English-speaking Wikipedia? Banishing not only applied in cases of extreme gravity? I'm a productive editor, is this really necessary? I demand revision of the blocking period. I did not break the three-revert rule this time. Chronus (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chronus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request the review of the blocking period applied against me. I know I committed myself earlier not to enter into any dispute, but this situation was different. I did not break the three-revert rule this time and the dispute in the article Brazil is not a simple editing war. A single editor, who is being reversed by others (such as Fbergo) and has not even received any punishment, is altering the status quo without any prior discussion. If I deserve any progressive blocking for having engaged me in an editorial dispute again is it something that can be discussed, but complete banishment?! I'm a committed editor, registered since 2007, with no relevant history of editorial disputes. I consider a banishment a disproportionate punishment for this case. I compromise myself try to discuss controversial changes. Chronus (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reply to Yamla in over a week. SQLQuery me! 21:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user promised to refrain from all future edit wars. If the reviewing administrator believes they did not engage in an edit war here, they are free to unilaterally lift the block. I placed an indefinite block because I believe the user did indeed engage in an edit war despite previously promising to avoid all edit wars in the future, and being unblocked based on that promise. Chronus, it's unclear to me if you are claiming you did not engage in an edit war. If so, please consider altering your unblock request to make that clear. In my opinion, that would be your only viable defence here given your previous promise. But, note that this is an opinion. The point of the unblock process is for another independent administrator to consider the whole case and they may decide to unblock you even if they agree you have engaged in an edit war. --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: I compromise myself not to enter in edit warring again and try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Please, give a last chance. Or at least shorten the blocking period. Chronus (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
But you already promised that before. That was the basis of your previous unblock. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yamla: Yes, but this situation was different. I am deeply sorry and I ask that I be not banished. You may even block me, but not indefinitely. Please. Chronus (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that "indefinite" doesn't mean "forever". For example, WP:SO would apply here. My concern, which I don't believe you've addressed, is that this case doesn't seem to be significantly different. You promised not to engage in any more edit wars, but appear to have done so. Is that not an accurate statement? (It may not be, so you should explain why it is not an accurate statement). --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Declined unblocks cannot be removed while you remain blocked. Continue to do so and you may lose access to edit this page. SQLQuery me! 01:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chronus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request the review of the blocking period applied against me. I know I committed myself earlier not to enter into any dispute, but this situation was different. The dispute in the article Brazil is not a simple editing war. A single editor, who is being reversed by others (such as Fbergo) and has not even received any punishment, is altering the status quo without any prior discussion. Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. I know I had already promised not to get involved in edit wars, but this case is different from the last. Moreover, I even did not break the three-revert rule this time. I am an experienced editor in other versions of the project (I am sysop in the lusophone version of Wikipedia) and I am not here to cause problems. I have been registered since 2009 in Anglophone Wikipedia and have almost 2,000 constructive editions and created articles. Have not all years of good history counted? I've been blocked for more than 10 days. I'm calling for a 2nd chance, please! Chronus (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Okay, you want a second chance, well here's my deal (also courtesy paging blocking admin Yamla):

  1. You agree to be under an indefinite one revert rule (1RR) restriction. That means you do not revert more than once per article per 24 hours. If you are in any doubt, don't revert.
  2. The restriction doesn't cover reverting obvious vandalism, copyright violations and other uncontroversial things that must be reverted per WP:3RRNO (but see point 1. above).
  3. You may able to appeal the restriction at a later date by starting a thread at WP:AN. I advise you not to do this until at least six months have passed, otherwise the appeal is likely to fail, and the restriction may possibly be extended.
  4. If you breach the restriction, you agree to be reblocked indefinitely with talk page access disabled. I don't mind a second chance, but a third?
  5. I'm not going to be following you around, stalking your edits to see if you go over 1RR. I trust you to be a grown-up and take the restriction seriously. However, this notice must remain on your talk page so other people can cross refer to it. Do not rely on "getting away with" because nobody's looking.

If both you and Yamla agree to these terms, I will ask Yamla to unblock (it's easier if a blocking admin reverses their own block after a discussion as it proves consensus was made). If Yamla doesn't agree I will have little choice but to decline your unblock request. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would accept unblocking under these terms. Be really, really careful with the second point there. The rule of thumb is that obvious vandalism is replacing the page with "har har har", rather than replacing someone's cited birth year with an uncited and incorrect birth year. I mention this because Ritchie333's conditions are appropriate, but I don't want you to get caught up in a violation of the second point. Note also that I'll be away for much of the rest of the week. If I see a response here before I leave, and if that response is accepting these conditions, I'll lift the block myself. But if I'm away, Ritchie333 or another admin should feel free to lift the block if these conditions are accepted. --Yamla (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and Yamla: I accept and commit myself to all the conditions imposed. And I am very grateful for this second opportunity. Chronus (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, Yamla, and Nosebagbear: One bot has closed my appeal for reviewing my edit restriction. Has my restriction been withdrawn? Chronus (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it was auto-archived because no-one was editing it. Embarassingly I have no idea how to smoothly get 1 thing out of the ANI archives (an undo wouldn't work, as it's multiple actions) - so I've manually reposted it. Hopefully it's new position will gather some additional attention and get you over the line. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying; I think I did get your ping about the AN thread but never got round to replying as I basically had no issue with you appealing, or with lifting the restriction. As Beeblebrox says, happy editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion

What's your opinion on the images I've changed on my Brazil-like sandbox here: Sandbox? HistorianM (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@HistorianM: Hello. The proposed photographs are of worse quality (framing, lighting, resolution) than the images that are currently in the article:
  • the jaguar's image is of poor quality and you can hardly see the animal, while the current image is considered valuable in Wikimedia Commons;
  • the same goes for the image of the Palácio Planalto: the current image is highlighted in the Commons, while the one chosen by you is of worse quality and framing;
  • the PHEM Atlantic photograph shows the ship in a frozen region of Norway that has nothing to do with the Brazilian geography;
  • the image of the KC-390 barely shows the aircraft, while the current image shows the airplane in full and in flight;
  • the photograph of Guarulhos Airport is outdated (2007), with poor lighting and does not shows the international passenger terminal;
  • the image of the BR-116 shows a little important section of the highway, while the current one shows the Presidente Dutra highway, which connects the two main brazilian metropolis;
  • the image of Pomerode has a bad lighting and has a watermark of a date;
  • the image of Porto Santos shows only three container cranes, while the current one shows an aerial view of the entire port complex.
In short, I disagree with all the images proposed because they are of worse quality than those present today in the entry about Brazil. In addition, I ask you to undo the two editons ([5] and [6]) that you made in the article, since you should not modify the photos on the page without first discussing the subject on the discussion page, as you have already been advised. Thank you. Greetings. Chronus (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chronus. 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)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Catarina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ocean

I would think that with 10 years experience on WP, you would know that it is typically preferred that issues regarding articles be discussed on article talk pages, not user talk pages. But if not, then surely the request clearly posted on my talk page would have made you aware of that in this case. In the future, should you have any questions, regarding any articles, I would ask that you post them on the article talk page and not on my talk page. - wolf 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanking vs Archiving

Hi there,

I'd just like to ask whether you're blanking talk page discussions out of preference or not knowing how to archiving. It's certainly your right, it just makes it easier to check certain things (I came for your restriction review, but 95% of times it'd be for editing reasons). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: As I write much less in English-speaking Wikipedia compared to Portuguese, my discussion page here is not very hectic. So I did not bother to keep a file. Should I reenter the messages? Chronus (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there's a great benefit at this point. Might be worth not deleting things in the future until they're a year (or whatever suitable time) old? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
It's remarkably easy to set up "one click archiving" if you're so inclined, once it's on it's actually easier than removing things by editing them, as the name implies it takes but one click. If you want I can set it up for you in a matter of seconds. As a matter of policy you don't have to, but it makes finding old discussions much easier if ended. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"AquaRio" or "Georga Aquarium"?

Chronus, I want to thank you for creating the article for the AquaRio last November. One issue I had is the infobox says "Georgia Aquarium". I'm not sure why, but I saw it as a mistake, and I managed to correct it today (August 15). Jim856796 (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jim856796: Hi. It was my mistake. I copied the infobox from the Georgia Aquarium article and forgot to change all the information. Thanks a lot for the help! Chronus (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Please, in future, provide proper evidence. A link to the archive and a ping to DrKay is not evidence at all. We need diffs which show how the behaviour of the accused socks matches the behaviour of the master. If you can't do it then message DrKay and have them do it for you. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Northeast Brazil oil spill

On 29 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Northeast Brazil oil spill, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of SoftStack Factory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SoftStack Factory 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftStack Factory 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. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Pergunta

Oi, tudo bem? Gostaria de solicitar sua ajuda, já que você é administrador da Wikipédia em Português, sobre um caso que pode lhe interessar. Tem um usuário estranho na Wikipédia em Francês, que eu suspeito que possa ser algum brasileiro banido da Wiki-PT e esteja "se vingando" na wiki francesa. O usuário em questão só faz edições negativas, visando denegrir a imagem dos biografados e temas dos artigos em geral, mas como ele disfarça isto colocando fontes, fica parecendo edições normais. O estranho é que ele tem bastante fixação em denegrir o Brasil, me parece, portanto, ser algum brasileiro que até more no exterior. O nome do usuário é Manodestina (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Manodestina). Só para você ter uma noção do que ele faz, neste diff aqui (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89tat_de_S%C3%A3o_Paulo&diff=175780838&oldid=174487483) ele retirou um dado sobre PIB e população do artigo (que é dado neutro, numérico) e em troca ele colocou dados tentando denegrir a produção de etanol do estado. Você poderia verificar se não é algum sockpuppet ou algo do tipo? Agradeço sua ajuda. 2804:14D:5C8F:832B:418C:D04A:870A:98DB (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plano Real, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian economy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Brazil
added a link pointing to Brazilian economy
Plano Real
added a link pointing to Brazilian economy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Latin America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One Tower.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Freshworks (October 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Just summarizes announcements of routine business activities or interviews with staft, which does not establish notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
331dot (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Chronus! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 331dot (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to São Paulo, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. - Sumanuil (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Largest metropolitan areas of Brazil

Template:Largest metropolitan areas of Brazil has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Public Relations Global Network

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Public Relations Global Network, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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. 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. CUPIDICAE💕 19:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Public Relations Global Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Public Relations Global Network 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Relations Global Network (2nd nomination) 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.

CUPIDICAE💕 14:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

*Please* use edit comments

Please use WP:Edit comments for your edits. Otherwise, all your edits may be summarily reversed. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09 Reverted why? Why did I remove your precious deforestation image? The photo has already been replaced in the article (this time in the appropriate section), so keep your threats to yourself. Chronus (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It was not a threat. I replaced the image; not you. You merely moved it to a separate section afterwards. Generally, see WP:OWN. Specifically, lose the sarcasm. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@RCraig09 Yes, I "merely" put the image in the section that matches what it represents. Don't try to belittle my work. Chronus (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Demographics of Mexico into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Note: I noticed that you made a sufficient summary at Mexico. Just be sure that, in the future, you also add a summary at the page that the content is merged into as well. – Pbrks (t • c) 16:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbrks Ok, sorry. Chronus (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Images

Pls review MOS:IMAGELOC.



Images make Wikipedia more informative, accessible, and professional.

In general, when working with images:
DO:
Review the image style guide and use policy.
Give context with captions and alt text.
Try to find at least one image for each article.
Find free images, or create and upload your own.
Clean up images: crop, color-correct, etc.
Use the best file format for each image.
Use objects for scale where helpful.
Place images in the section to which they are related
DON'T:
Don't upload non-free images.
Don't use images in place of tables or charts.
Don't use images or galleries excessively.
Don't add images that are not relevant.
Don't flip faces, text, or works of art.
Don't set fixed image sizes.
Don't sandwich text between two images.
Don't refer to images by their placement.
Don't place images too early or at the end of sections.
- Moxy- 05:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Demographics of São Paulo into São Paulo. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Information icon 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! Largoplazo (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing edits without edit summaries

You are doing an awful lot of editing without explaining your edits. They may be perfectly good edits, but, particularly when you're deleting substantial material (which you appear to have done at Mexico), you ought to explain what you're doing and why for the benefit of others reviewing changes to those articles. Your consistent failure to leave such summaries can be considered disruptive. Please take the time to leave explanations. Largoplazo (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo I already explained the reasons for my edits in Mexico on your talk page and you seem to understand my argument. Also, I thought my edits to the Monterrey article were self-explanatory, as the page had a warning about excessive imagery. Anyway, you can rest assured that I'll be more careful in the next editions and explain what I'm doing in the summaries. Thanks. Chronus (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Chronus: You thought the only requirement was that you explain edits to the one article in July and didn't take away from our conversation the point that leaving edit summaries should be routine? Even I didn't know what the reason was for your latest edits because, believe it or not, after a couple of months with hundreds more edits by me and interactions with many other people, I didn't remember you in particular editing this article in particular, that we had discussed it before. And that's just me and this article. There are many people you are leaving in the dark about all of the articles you're editing. So thank you for understanding now and resolving to explain your edits going forward. Largoplazo (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Belo Horizonte

Hi there,

Would you mind telling me why you removed the picture and link to Aureliano Chaves building from the article?

Cheers.

Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rkieferbaum Porque ele claramente não cabe no layout da página. Leia o Livro de Estilo, por favor. Chronus (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Um resumo na edição teria sido bem vindo... abraço e boas edições. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

France

Why did you kick out useful informations?--Ulamm (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ulamm Hi. How are you? What 'informations'? The article is already too long, with more than 290 kB, so I did a little summary. Furthermore, much of this content is already present in specific articles on the topics addressed, therefore it is unnecessary to expand on this in the main article on the country. Thanks!Chronus (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A list of the biggest cities is a classical element of each main article on any country.
  • My map of regions & departments is a compact information on the geographic administrative structure of France. Without it, the reading visitors need a lot of research and own evaluation to get it. This way, this map saves space and time. And as French people understand the geography of their country by the departments, as a foreigner you have to know the departments to understand French people.--Ulamm (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Ulamm Hi. Firstly, there is now a template with the list of the biggest cities in the country. Please, pay attention before coming to complain here. Furthermore, the existing maps in the entry are already sufficient for readers to understand the geographic administrative structure of France. Thanks. Chronus (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

edit summaries

please use edit summaries - to revert someone without explanation is not helpful, and could be received as being rude. regards, --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Merbabu It was you who "inexplicably" removed content, not me. Why was the image collage removed? And who said you can change the status quo? Chronus (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I restored it to the long-standing single image. The subject of an RFC and protracted debate. I put this in the edit summary. You can look in the archives...there was a long debate about this, and as for status quo, it's only changed to collage in recent months. And, there is nothing to stop any editor changing the status quo on any article - indeed that is the whole point of wikipedia.
In contrast, your change had no edit summary. I've looked at your contributions and you provide almost no edit summaries for your edits. Hence my original comment above. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Merbabu OK, sorry. I didn't know about this previous debate. But it's a shame anyway that a city like Sydney is represented in the infobox by only two structures. Neither CBD is shown. Chronus (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
All good - I realise that collages are the norm for large cities, but there are still a large number of us who don't support them. In this case, I think there are more important things to argue over on wikipedia, so I will leave it as is...(for now - ha ha). --Merbabu (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chronus/Archive_1&oldid=1172621092"