User talk:Maciuf

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Maciuf! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Nardog (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome (and the cookies, too). Maciuf (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 22[edit]

Do not remove or alter other users' posts, it is against policy. 16:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions Notification - Balkans and Eastern Europe[edit]

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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) 17:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

Your commentary about an editor in the summary of the edit you made to Bangladesh was uncalled-for. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Nardog (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Maciuf (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maciuf, I notice it was me you tagged in your edit summary, and I just wanted to let you know that even if you find editors like me incapable just because of a certain mistake you found (even established editors can make mistakes, not everyone is perfect), it is better to just correct any perceived mistake rather than speak down upon an editor like me in your edit summary for making a mistake in the first place. I would request you to please not speak down upon editors like me in your edit summaries or elsewhere in future (like Nardog has also requested) because it potentially could go against Wikipedia's civility policy.

And in any case, because I have rarely heard native English speakers pronounce the word "Bangladesh" with the father vowel (except maybe speakers of Indian English or the surrounding region, who mostly follow their native pronunciations) as most native English speakers I have heard pronounce the word closer to, or with, the trap vowel, my edit was not completely wrong as you perceive it to be (and in any case, even if the IPA wasn't featured in the source, the two audio samples both matched the English IPA I gave because both speakers pronounced the initial vowel closer to the trap vowel and not the father vowel). Anyway, many thanks and good day to you. Broman178 (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The error whose existence I implied was omitting the /ɡ/ sound after /ŋ/. Nevertheless, I apologise for my incivility. Have a good day. Maciuf (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology and I thank you in turn for pointing out the error I actually made. I will definitely make sure I check my edits more carefully in future before I post them. Broman178 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly an important topic, but may I ask why you prefer X-SAMPA in {{IPAc-en}}? Those are from the days when the default fonts on most devices didn't support IPA symbols, which isn't the case anymore. Using the same symbols as the output makes inspecting source and diffs easier. It's quite easy if you use CharInsert, the 2010 toolbar, or my own IPAInput. Nardog (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use it because it is faster. I hope this is not an issue. Maciuf (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, using the output symbols makes reviewing your edits easier, so I'd prefer if you did, though it's not a huge issue. Nardog (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Maciuf (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

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

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Jeppiz (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]