User talk:Alvalade XXI

Hello Alvalade XXI! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

A lengthy welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello! Your edit here contaminated the cited source which clearly gives her names in Sweden in a different sequence than they had in France. Please be sure to check if there is a cited source to what you want to change, and don't make changes contrary to sources, Best wishes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hi. Please take a look at WP:PARAGRAPH. There's no need to start a new line for each sentence, especially on stub articles. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Günther Wirth. Please don't add dates of death to articles without AT THE SAME TIME adding a reference to a reliable published source to verify that addition. In the case of Günther Wirth, you added a date of death without even a source to verify he was dead. This is absolutely unacceptable. Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at John Poole (footballer, born 1932), you may be blocked from editing. I'm disappointed to have to come here again, but I can't see a date of death specfied directly or indirectly anywhere on the page you cited as a source. Please either show me why I'm wrong, or else please stop adding unsourced content relating to people's deaths. Thank you for listening. Struway2 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the issues, but I've copied and pasted on the articles the sources that were on the list of recent deaths and which I assumed to be complete and accurate. Alvalade XXI (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Best not do that again, then: WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Race (human categorization); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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. My edit summary (Reverted addition of excessively long quotation. If an editor believes that this is WP:DUE content, I would suggest summarizing. This is preferred encyclopedic style. See WP:QUOTEFARM) made it clear why I reverted your edit, yet you restored it immediately without explanation and without opening a discussion on the talk page.[1] This is called edit warring and it violates one of our basic norms here: WP:BRD. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and community norms –– and commit to observing them –– before editing this article further. Generalrelative (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, I've just saved the content as well as the need to summarize it in order not to become lost in other editions. Alvalade XXI (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it's done. Again, see WP:BRD. Generalrelative (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jordan Peterson. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Generalrelative (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've simply readded content that was in sources already within the articles. Alvalade XXI (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to Toxic masculinity has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - Gamergate and gender; Race and Intelligence

Given your editing interests, I thought it appropriate to alert you to these discretionary sanctions. Please note that these do not imply any wrongdoing by you. They are only to alert you to these discretionary sanctions.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Race (human categorization). Altering other editors' comments on talk page discussions as you did here [2] constitutes vandalism. Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

After receiving this warning you proceeded to erase my comment here: [3] This behavior is totally unacceptable. Generalrelative (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Because it was unnecessary, given that I've corrected my edit and the wrong impression my edit left. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Final notice for edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Toxic masculinity; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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. Generalrelative (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Seriously final warning

I can't tell if your edits are intentionally disruptive or not. Regardless, they are disruptive. Please take time to discuss your edits and make sure they conform to Wikipedia's rules and policies. Some of these include:

• Do not edit others' comments (WP:TPO)
• Do not add blogs in the external links (WP:ELNO)
• Do not edit war (WP:EW)
• Please do be bold but not reckless (WP:BOLD)
• Please do discuss changes (WP:BRD)

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not intentionally disruptive. I've edited another's comment for having become needless, the website I've added isn't a blog, only has two connections to blogs, some editors use the edit warring to win arguments, I've been the most accurate I can with sources and I've searched for the best I can find, and it's hard to discuss changes that don't have sufficient grounds for them rather than what often seems to be personal politically correct positions. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if the comment is needless, don't alter or remove it. And the website you linked ([4]) would be a "blog" in the sense of a personal website (see #11 on WP:ELNO). Wikipedia is collaborative and done by consensus. The edits you've made have, from what I can see, largely been your personal additions (WP:NOR) which do not reflect sources or are specific sources picked to show a certain view. For the latter, that's the kind of thing you need to discuss. We tend to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources which give overviews of topics and not original research articles as the latter can be cherry-picked to create a certain narrative. Another link that might be helpful (it was to me) is WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Original research articles are the most reliable, as long as the cherry picking reflects the actual truth of the article. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an academic lit review. It's an encyclopedia (a tertiary source) that summarizes secondary and some primary sources. Please check out WP:ORIGINAL, especially the subsection WP:SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That's why people always say "don't trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information"... Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Different issue but that's because people don't understand how Wikipedia works (or any encyclopedia really). Meta summaries and analyses give a better overall view of a phenomenon (c.f. FiveThirtyEight) or the academic consensus on a topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

But they lack the accuracy of an original source and are often manipulated towards a viewpoint. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, I recommend reading WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For a bit more context here: I've also noticed that your edit history looks suspiciously like WP:PGAME in order to achieve extended confirmed status, e.g. around 250 edits in just a few hours on December 18th, most of which it seems simply change the date format (e.g. October 2, 2002 -> 2 October 2002, though both are equally acceptable per MOS:NUM) or add unnecessary sections to short bios. Can you explain this behavior? Generalrelative (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not forbidden. Also, the dates have a format for American articles and another for others. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:PGAME is indeed forbidden. Do you have a source for your claim about date style in bios of Americans versus other nationalities? I've linked to MOS:NUM which clearly shows that the two styles are equally acceptable. That means that changing the one to the other qualifies as unconstructive –– not necessarily disruptive in and of itself, but if part of a larger pattern of WP:PGAME it is certainly a problem. Generalrelative (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not what I've seen in articles. Virtually all American articles have the month before the day, while all British, etc, articles have the day before the month. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". Generalrelative (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For me it is a yes. As it is a confirmation that the only thing you do is constantly challenging my edits. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC) I've also read other editors correcting dates on the same grounds. Alvalade XXI (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You've already ruined my main contributions, what else can you want from now on? I still make the same corrections you've called a game, even today. There is nothing else for me to make the articles greater. Goodbye to you both from me. Alvalade XXI (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Jim Marurai death date

It's hard on us Wikipedians when sources fail to be precise and no amount of searching in reliable, published sources turns up the info we want. Nonetheless, Wikipedia says that truth is secondary to verifiabliity. If, in the future, someone with access to Internet Archive was to research whether the date of death was ever on line, they would discover that Wikipedia fudged the number, and WP would look like a hypocrite. Just saying.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You know what an edit war is...

Regarding Jim Marurai
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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. --Quisqualis (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Toxic masculinity) for a period of 48 hours 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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It was not a war, it was an adding of something that was never there in the first place. You're partial. Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) You even use the excuse of edit warring when there was none. If I add something from the article, as I did, that minimizes the findings and the idea of toxic masculinity, the PC police appears and uses its Administrator's powers to say: "no, it's toxic, you're blocked!"... Anyone who gets to read the article is more cautionous, but who does? Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You added ([5]) effectively the same content you'd previously added (e.g., [6], [7]) with synonyms substituted. That is edit warring. Request an unblock or overall review if you like. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

So you claim. Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC) I had never added the Toxic femininity link or the rest of the conclusion of the study before. Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Toxic femininity link was not part of the rationale for your block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh! I don't even read any longer... Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Julie Strain

Her article states she did not die in 2020, this is 2021 and this time it has not been denied.--Folengo (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The articles does not say she died. Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC) And was not corrected. Alvalade XXI (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ethnic nationalism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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.

What you are engaged in at Ethnic nationalism is called a slow-motion edit war. After being blocked for edit warring you've come back and re-added a link to the white nationalist blog eurocanadian.ca, despite being informed in my previous edit summary that my basis for removing this link was its violation of the norm expressed in the essay WP:NONAZI. EvergreenFir has warned you that, whether intentional or not, your pattern of editing on controversial topics is disruptive. Please respect that warning, and respect our community norms. Generalrelative (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an edit war and I saw nothing of Nazism on it. You seem to be after my edits, whatever they are. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you read the essay I linked to above. This is a widespread community norm. Generalrelative (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Also: what's up with calling Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt a "martyr" in your edit summary here [8]? A martyr to what? Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh, duh, she was unarmed, people make her a victim of Police brutality. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

She tried a forced entry into a secure prohibited area. Boom! WWGB (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an excuse for the use of lethal force. It's not worse than a criminal with a long wrapsheet having a Police Officer on his neck and, accidentally or negligentially, killing him. Boom! Alvalade XXI (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to debate this issue with you here. But I will notify you that calling other editors "Leftards" as you did in your most recent edit summary [9] clearly violates our policy of WP:CIVILITY. Repeated instances of this type of behavior will result in further blocks or topic bans. Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's because of the contempt you all show for those who are killed without reason and are not black or Leftist. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Block, Warnings, and Discretionary Sanctions Alert

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is your final notice. Your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:POINTy. Continuation of this behavior would indicate you are either not here to build an encyclopedia or that you are unable to edit collaboratively. I will also formally notify you (bureaucratic requirement) of the discretionary sanctions related to American Politics (see below) as your disruption has leaked into that area.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be in cohoots with one another, even this section being right. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's because of the contempt you all show for those who are killed without reason and are not black or Leftist. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Setting yourself and your co-ideologues up as victims is not the sort of reasoned explanation Wikipedia expects. You appear to be here not to make an encyclopedia, but to waste our time with endless verbal wrangling. Why not cut yourself and Wikipedia some slack by finding another hobby?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If they're my ideologues or not, it doesn't matter. The use of force was as reasoned as they were unarmed people, whatever they were doing, it's reason. I am to make an encyclopedia, as most of my edits show, it's people like you that seem to be radicals that want to shoot and kill everyone that forces their way into the Capitol, specially the ones who oppose you. You mean, cut you people some slack? No, you cut yourself some slack, no one asked for you to come here. Alvalade XXI (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The only thing that makes me stop is the lack of access to a computer in my present situation, otherwise I simply wait until you all piss off. Alvalade XXI (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for removing all doubt as to your intentions wrt Wikipedia. You have only succeeded in fooling yourself.

We have no intention of pissing off. I suggest you spend more time on your forums, as constant repetition only convinces the converted, while annoying the rest of us.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

See how you are tendencious? Another one. You persecute people simply because they disagree on the police actions, assume I belong to some radical forums and that I am repeating constantly something you consider to be a lie until people believe it's true, simply disregarding it's actually true; the constant denial of the truth doesn't change it. Alvalade XXI (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hi Alvalade XXI! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at James & Bobby Purify that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that you're still inappropriately tagging edits as minor, like here. Edits that add or remove content are rarely if ever minor. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. DrKay (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits are simply the ones with few letters, words or phrases and / or little new elements or the ones that are already mentioned in the article but missing from one place or another on it. I will be more cautionous from now on. Alvalade XXI (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not tag changes to content as minor. You just altered someone's name at Sol Tolchinsky and marked it as minor. It was not minor. It was unsourced and contradicted the sources in the article. DrKay (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I always had Sol as the short for Solomon, I did not know, my mistake, sorry. I have also pushed the envelope on the proximity of birthdays. Alvalade XXI (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, I'm 2001:569:74D2:A800:80A0:95F8:636A:2DB3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Francisco Daniel Rivera Sánchez have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thank you. 2001:569:74D2:A800:80A0:95F8:636A:2DB3 (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Page titles for orders and awards

Hi! You have recently moved quite a number of pages relating to orders and awards from their common name - e.g. Empire Gallantry Medal - to their full formal name - e.g. Medal of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for Gallantry.

Could I suggest that you read carefully the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Article titles? This goes into some depth, but is summarised:

Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.

I think, in most cases, your recent moves do not reflect this policy - they are not the most commonly used name in the sources, and are much longer than the previous titles - so the pages are very likely to be moved back. Could I ask that you carefully consider the naming policy before doing any further moves; and strongly suggest that if you are any less than 100% certain that a move is positively required by the naming policy, that you raise it on the relevant article talk page first?

Thanks, TSP (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@TSP: The editor just did the same thing with Order of the Garter to Most Noble Order of the Garter. These are unhelpful, misguided edits, ignoring Wikipedia policy. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have moved it back. WP:COMMONNAME clearly applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burt Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COVID-19 pandemic in New York. 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) 06:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Waymore's Outlaws

Here to make the same remark as DrKay above me. Was there any particular discussion involved in moving the name of the band from The Waylors? It was their name while Jennings was alive, as well as the name that most bibliography points to.--GDuwenHoller! 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The name was changed during his lifetime too, he remained a member of the group until his death, as per infobox, that is, even after the group changed its name. Alvalade XXI (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2021-02 Marxiste Culturel

Hello,

About the « Marxiste Culturel » phrase that you wrote in fr Wikipeida a few days ago, please read Cultural Marxism carefully. Regards, Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There is not a conspiracy per se, but its pervasive mentality remains in too many circles. Alvalade XXI (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I hereby do not declare an edit war

I notice your fastidious efforts to ensure certain information is preserved on the Edward Stourton page. I also notice your previous warnings for 'edit warring' and I have no intention of starting one. I am only requesting that you reference the bibliographic elements you are professing to ensure the page, and others, do not become full of anecdotes and lists of academic qualifications. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTeme (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

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

Carrie (2002 film)

added a link pointing to David Carson

Sinister (film)

added a link pointing to Nick King

Sparrow (1993 film)

added a link pointing to Allan Baker

The Woods (2006 film)

added a link pointing to David Ross

Toolbox Murders

added a link pointing to Andrew Cohen

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Date styles

Canada uses both date styles (mm/dd and dd/mm) per MOS:DATETIES. Per WP:DATERET it is unnecessary to arbitrarily change the styles to dd/mm for articles of Canadian subjects. Connormah (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only is it unnecessary, per MOS:NUM: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style; revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Generalrelative (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I see you've done this again after my initial message. Please stop. Connormah (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Redlinks in archived Deaths pages

Hey. Please stop adding deceased persons with no Wikipedia articles to archived months of Deaths lists, as you did with Deaths in March 2020 and Deaths in July 2020. Redlinks can only stay for 30 days before they need to bluelink to a Wikipedia article. Your edits are naturally being reverted. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not "naturally", there are lots of red links on death pages in order for someone to create the respective articles. Alvalade XXI (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand - ALL redlinks, whether person articles or supporting notability articles, are removed from the current Deaths page after 30 days. That means that redlinked subjects can't be added to Deaths pages covering periods beyond 30 days, nor can deleted (redlink) subjects be allowed to stay if they're in Deaths pages covering periods beyond 30 days. I don't just make stuff up - more than one editor has reverted your redlink additions because they understand the consensus surrounding this. Naturally. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand, though I did not know at first, it is one of your limitative rules that ends up reducing the numbber of new articles. Too bad. One has to create the articles first, and then you cannot delete their mentions. Naturally. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Go with the consensus or go. That's about it really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I never intended to defy the consensus, nor did I know it was the result of one. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

British peers

I think many of your undiscussed moves of articles about British peers may violate the exception "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names" at WP:OBE. Renaming so many articles so quickly without discussion is likely to be seen as disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, please! Historically, their titles will remain attached to their names. Alvalade XXI (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We go by what they are known as, not you prediction of what they will be known as at some point in the future. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean, their present for life? Alvalade XXI (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop moving articles immediately. It is disruptive to continue with edits after being asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Asked by whom, some other editor who is no one? Alvalade XXI (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You didn't stop, so you're blocked. Standard conditions for unblock apply. DrKay (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did stop. How do you know I didn't, you blocked me needlessly even without me making any other article move. For that reason, please, unblock me. I have stopped! Alvalade XXI (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your response to a request to stop moving pages was to call that person a "no one". This block is stopping you from further disruption, so I think it should stay. If you commit to being more collaborative, I think we could probably unblock you, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2021 (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.

I warned you about moving pages against consensus above, on 7th February. Three editors questioned your page moves on 7-8 February. Since then, you have moved at least 11 pages against consensus, which I have now moved back. Duncan wrote to you at timestamp 22:36. You then proceeded to move a further 7 pages, at least two of which were in contravention of previous requested move discussions. Let me reiterate: you must not unilaterally move pages against consensus. DrKay (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Alerted to these page moves (and resultant block) as one of them was on my watchlist. There appear to be dozens of such moves. Is there a way to revert them with a bot, DrKay, or do they need to be done manually? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I did mine manually, but there is a list of users at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Plastikspork/massmove.js who appear to have a mass move script installed. DrKay (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know these moves had anything inaccurate. Alvalade XXI (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry for the unintentional trouble, I'll go back to my obituaries. Please, unblock me, or you'll set me that work back one week. Thank you, and sorry once again. Alvalade XXI (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I didn't know about consensuses or that each article demanded one, a true waste of time for most cases. I also did my work manually, one by one. My reference to "some other editor who is no one" wasn't directed to you, but to the first editor who simply suggested disruption without actually affirming it. Alvalade XXI (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've called "no one" to another simple user, not to the Administrator who then came into. I won't disrupt and I've been collaborative for the most. If I must be more, then so be it. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

By your block evasion, you have demonstrated you are unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are extremely lucky you were blocked for only one week here. This will almost certainly be your last chance, so take advantage of it. Yamla (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2021 (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.

I have reset your block because you are evading it by editing as an IP[10] despite being warned against editing while logged out.[11] DrKay (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm using IPs from a Public Library and a Shopping Mall, where anyone, everyone can make edits, and you use that to block me. Well, too bad. But you should worry more about those editions themselves: for what I've seen, a user that has only made three edits deleted twice the contradictory that was added to that very article wirh lame excuses [12] [13], in order to make it more solid and without dissent, even though a passage of that very same article has a reception section with the critique to the work [14]. In any case, I want to appologize for not knowing all the Wikipedia rules, I keep stumbling on one without wanting to break it: who would know Life Peers, some Life Peers, cannot ostentate their titles? Alvalade XXI (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Alvalade XXI! Your additions to Ansley Truitt have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It was just a small paragraph mentioning his family from a source that was already there. How does one not "plagyarize" minimal terms like son, daughter, wife, grandson, granddaughter and theur names? Alvalade XXI (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alvalade XXI. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)