User talk:Dornicke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Dornicke! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Peacent 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Re:Discussion page[edit]

No worries about creating the talk page. Normally, discussion pages of articles would remain red links until editors bring forward some issues about these pages. (You might start the talk page simply by editing it and save the page, really!) About editors who could be interested in arts or museum, perhaps you might post your questions at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts if you need help from users who are knowledgeable about art-related topics. If this project is inactive, you might ask some editors in the list of participants directly, or you might also request help from one of its sub project (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture). You're doing very well in expanding and improving São Paulo Museum of Art. Thanks for your contributions, :) Peacent 10:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Museum name[edit]

Hi Dornicke (talk), I think for now the best idea is to use Museum of Contemporary Art, University of São Paulo, although the original Portuguese name is ok too. I think the translated English version is fine, and will be more easily grasped here. I hope this helps. Modernist (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry for the mess, my answer is here Aloxe (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey, I've just seen the Museu Nacional de Belas Artes article and want to congratulate you for the work you did to showcase Brazilian heritage in Wiki-en by expanding it. In January 2007, in another life (as User:Fsouza), I created it as a small draft, and it's great to see that someone turned it into a wonderful article. I rarely come back to Wiki-en to see "my" old articles, and today I had this nice surprise. Best, --Fulviusbsas (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Dornicke; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule reminder[edit]

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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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; 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.--MONGO 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dornicke reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring at Talk:September 11 attacks and agenda-driven screeds. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dornicke (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

"The warning in my page reads: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. / You are reverting criticism related to whitewashing in the article in the talk page. Not a single valid reason for censoring it has been provided. The project rules do not support this kind of censorship. It's bad enough that a group of editors believe to the the owners of the article and persistently revert any change in the text. But now you want to CENSOR valid criticism towards the article in the talk page itself? That's more than a very bad taste joke. It's vandalism. Talk about "ideological motivation"... As for "The editor's work seems to have a singular ideological motivation", just look for my contributions, in this project, and also in the Portuguese (including the featured articles I wrote, almost all of them about art), the French, the Italian, and the Spanish wikipedias. And also for the 6,000 images I've uploaded/donated to Wikimedia Commons. The first reversion by Mongo didn't even include a reason. That's because he simply didn't know how to justify such an absurd action as deleting a discussion simply because he didn't like the way it was going... and it's really funny to see editors that were not even involved in the discussion running here to ask for "punishment". Why? No arguments to defend your point of view, so nobody must see the criticism in the talk page? LOL indeed!Dornicke (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:23, 6 April 2014 (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.

I think this exchange illustrates the institutional flavor of Wikipedia. I saw the discussion on the talk page and found it typical of the Wikipedia community. This user has it right; I agree with their assertions about that unfounded sentence in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more --Mannydantyla (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) are not for general discussion about unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ansh666 18:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.


I've filed an RfE regarding your conduct here.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

As a result of the WP:AE discussion referenced above [2], you are now topic-banned from the topic area of the 9/11 attacks and 9/11 conspiracy theories. The restriction is of indefinite duration and includes any edits relating to these topics, across all namespaces (both article content and discussions). This will be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. The WP:AE page contains information on how to appeal this sanction. Fut.Perf. 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Bilderberg Group, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Bilderberg Group. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Dornicke. 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)

Frans post no Itaú Cultural[edit]

Oi, Dornicke, bacana o trabalho sobre o Frans Post. Estamos em sintonia. Não são imagens ótimas, mas recentemente fotografei desenhos dele no Itaú Cultural. Talvez se interesse. Espero que esteja bem. --Joalpe (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)