User talk:Almadão

December 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dr. med. have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dr. med. was changed by Almadão (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.961369 on 2022-12-31T14:36:21+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dr. med.. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lastsoundofdefense (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello! We are not supposed to add the names of irrelevant in-laws who are not notable, to the biographies of notable people such as Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein. Also we are not supposed to engage in edit warring. I will remove those names again and I ask you to work on Wikipedia according to basic principles and rules we all follow here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Almadão! Your additions to Environmental vegetarianism 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. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
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 either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Empathy into Guilt (emotion). 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) 20:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy material from within Wikipedia without proper attribution, as you did here. Doing so creates a lot of work for other editors and can result in legal issues. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hi Almadão! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor 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. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Edits introducing new content, such as this one should not be marked as minor. It is disruptive to continue to mislabel edits after being asked not to. DrKay (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note per WP:BLPPRIVACY, personal details of non-notable living people should not be posted to wikipedia. The standard for inclusion is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. DrKay (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nikolai Kulikovsky shows that you are currently 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. 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; read about 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.

People do not have to be deprived of elements about his descendants. Almadão (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nikolai Kulikovsky, you may be blocked from editing. I cautioned against tagging edits as minor when they involve changes to content. Changing sourced dates is never a minor edit. It is disruptive to continue a series of edits after being asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Count Flemming of Rosenborg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Major. 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) 17:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

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

Count Flemming of Rosenborg

added a link pointing to Contractor

Countess Anne Dorte of Rosenborg

added a link pointing to Procurator

John Rudolphus Booth

added a link pointing to Waterloo Township

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert van Eyck moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Robert van Eyck. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Killarnee (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Horny fraud

A tag has been placed on Horny fraud, 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:

It is an "attack page" or an unsourced biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity, or articles about living people that are entirely negative and unsourced. Attack pages, attack files and negative unreferenced BLPs are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing
It is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently 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. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want? The sources are all bad for you? Newspapers, scientific publications, all bad? Almadão (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to begin discussing this on the article's talk page rather than revert warring, as explained in the message I just left. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not warring, it's not the same content, I've changed the sources, but even then they get deleted. Do I have to discuss a source that I'm adding simply because others were rejected? How can I know you keep rejecting the sources without reason in order to discuss anything? Almadão (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously the same content. Making partial changes does not alter that fact. Yes, you must discuss on the article talk page. You are being reverted by multiple other users. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it has another source, it's not the same content, since the content was deleted only because of source disagreements. The challenged content is the source, if that content is changed, there is no reason to delete it simply because the text is the same. The content that is in cause is the source itself. Changing a source is not a partial change, it's a change that justifies the added paragraph. If there is another source and the text was only deleted because of it, then the text remains valid with the new source. The problem is that the sources keep being challenged for no reason. Almadão (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is obviously the same content. If you try to test that argument (as plenty of others have in the past) you can expect to find yourself blocked for edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different source, then a different text. Almadão (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added the same paper multiple times, with the exact same wording to the paragraph. This is the heart of edit warring. Discuss what you want to add on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it has another source, it's not the same content, since the content was deleted only because of source disagreements. The challenged content is the source, if that content is changed, there is no reason to delete it simply because the text is the same. The content that is in cause is the source itself. Changing a source is not a partial change, it's a change that justifies the added paragraph. If there is another source and the text was only deleted because of it, then the text remains valid with the new source. The problem is that the sources keep being challenged for no reason. Almadão (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]