User talk:ThiagoSimoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, ThiagoSimoes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for MapleStory DS. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1995 Aerobic Gymnastics World Championships[edit]

Thanks for creating this; note that we cannot use other versions of Wikipedia as sources. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 PAG[edit]

Thank you for your contributions! Keep it up. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem! That would be great! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

Why are you erasing all that gymnastics competition medals in all those athletes? Osplace 01:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Because I am trying to keep uniformity among all the articles. If you look up Ksenia Afanasyeva or Aliya Mustafina, you will see that there is no mention of "minor" medals in their medal records. So, I am trying to keep on their medal records only the results in major competitions. I plan to restore the deleted content, however, as a section in the articles, but not as a notable result on their medal records. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
YOU? You are trying? Have you ever consider that changing must of the gymnastics athletes have to requiere some consensus before even starting? Are you personal consideration based on, your personal consideration or have you considered WP:NGYMNASTICS before it? Who said that those athletes are the perfect example? Yes, they have major competition medals, but there are a lot of competitors who will never ever win one of those, but they have won one of the medals you are taken from them, because Aliya have not won one of those medals? You mean, that you are the one who decided to take this and have this instead? What if we stop all that and try to reach a consensus before. Should I UNDO all the changes if I do not like it? --Osplace 21:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NGYMNASTICS does not mention at all the way medals must be credited and displayed on Wikipedia articles. The point is not what medals Aliya Mustafina or Ksenia Afanasyeva have not won, but instead what medals are actually relevant to be displayed on their medal records. Should we display all the medals they have won in National meets as well as medals won at the Olympic Games? Take, for example, gymnast Diego Hypólito. He has won over 55 medals in World Cup stages. If we are to credit all these medals on the medal record, it could potentially cause formatting problems when reading the full article. Should not there be clear guidelines on how to credit medals in order to avoid misunderstandings like this one in the future? ThiagoSimoes (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Besides, WP:NGYMNASTICS is clearly outdated and it was created to cover only Women's Artistic Gymnastics. In Men's Artistic Gymnastics Japan is a major country, and it is not even mentioned there. Also, it does nothing for Trampoline Gymnastics, Aerobic Gymnastics, Acrobatic Gymnastics and Rhythmic Gymnastics. I believe it should be revised and updated in order to include the other disciplines. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there should be some uniformity, but only if there is consensus on this. You have been WP:Bold and that is absolutely fine, but now that you see that there is some disagreement, some compromise should be reached. If uniformity in the table is required, the list of what competitions count should be agreed upon first. I honestly don't think it is necessary for there to be uniformity. But I see the other side. I suggest creating a post at the gymnastics project. I think it is pretty obvious that "European Championships" or "World Championships" is major, but what about pacific rim, pan american, asian games, african games, Jesolo. It's not clear. MATThematical (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
This is for you. Ionoutz14 Ionel141 (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

2016 in artistic gymnastics[edit]

You recently posted on my page and I wanted to reply here too, just in case.

Okay, I really am sorry about making the sudden changes, and understand that you are upset. I'll try not to be so selfish in the future. However, I believe that the top season scores should truly reflect what are the current top season scores (regardless of a gymnast's national affiliation), so I wanted to get rid of the rule (I realize now I should have asked first, sorry!). Originally, I had the idea of imposing country limits so we could get a good idea of what all-around/event finals would look like at Worlds/the Olympics, but that appears rather unlikely. I understand if you want to reinstate it, but I politely ask that you edit whatever currently exists to reflect the rule (which was not previously enforced all that heavily but I digress) rather than undoing all the edits. Thank you, and I am truly sorry if I offended you. 108.51.166.81 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I truly am sorry and realize I should have asked first. I hope you understand my reasoning, as odd as it may be. 108.51.166.81 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel the Barn[edit]

Barnstar-goldrun7.png The Running Man Barnstar
For your exemplary contributions in the Wikipedia sports arena! gidonb (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 June[edit]

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) 00:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 in artistic gymnastics[edit]

I started a talk page section to discuss the categorization of Dutch Olympic Trials, if that's okay by you. 108.51.166.81 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Medals[edit]

Please use common sense - imagine such a situation for a swimmer: 2005 - bronze and silver, 2001 - gold and silver, 2000-2016 - multiple silvers. By your logic the 2001 gold will go on top, the 2005 bronze will go on bottom, and they will be separated by a dozen of silvers from mixed years. Ordering by date allows much easier reading for a given competition. Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: If all of the other articles followed the order you propose, this would not be a problem. The thing is: no other, or very few articles, are edited the way you think is right. If you care to take a look at all the other biographies about judokas or other athletes, you will see that medals are ordered by gold, silver and bronze, and then by date. It is not about what you think looks better, it is about what the community has decided to do. You can't change things just because you think the page will look better before using the article's talk page to ask for consensus. This is even worse because Rafael Silva's biography will look different from all the other biographies just because you think it will look better this way. I'm sorry, but you are the one not using common sense right now. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You're the only one thinking like that. And you can't ignore procedures based on your own will. Actually, it works way better to line them up by importance of medal. It's always been like this and it will continue to. You're being disruptive and it won't end well for you, scientist. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The key here is "the community has decided to do" - could you point me to that page (template documentations are not such a guideline). I know a few IPs (could be one person) who go around Wikipedia and mass reoder medal tables. Maybe this is why you see them like you described, but this is not a reason they should be that way. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen one user (you) reverting all articles. It's been like this for years. I'm an editor for 3 years and before that, I used to read the pages and they were already like this. Apparently you're the one reverting them based on your own will. That's completely wrong. And when the page is reverted, you undo it. That qualifies as edit warring and disruptive edit. So please stop it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: You just need to look at every other biographical article about judokas. This is the decision of the community. If you want to change it because you don't like the way it looks, you can't simply do whatever pleases you. As I said before, you must use the article's talk page, or even better, create a discussion on the talk page of Template:Medal. Now, you have reverted the edits on Rafael Silva's article three times already. If you do it a fourth time before ASKING FOR and effectively ACHIEVING consensus from other sources, I will report you. And since this will be your fourth time doing this, it qualifies as a possible ban from one of the administrators once the report is made. You have been warned here on this talk page, and if I need to, I will use this thread of conversation as proof that you have been warned. Please, stop doing what you are doing. Wikipedia is not yours so you can keep it "tidy" (on your own words when commenting on the edit history of Rafael Silva's article). Please, ask for consensus and use the talk pages before editing articles. It is important to talk fist and ask for other people's opinions. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok guys, I usually do not and will not edit war. You have both threatened me with reporting and blocking me. I don't care, but as a long-time admin on this wiki I warn you both not to use such language to other users. Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: First, what you call "threat" is what I call "effectively informing you what results your actions might generate according to guidelines on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring". Second, if you are an administrator yourself, with all due respect, you should have known better. I am open to discussions on the talk pages of corresponding articles in the future, but for now I think there is no reason to take this discussion any further here. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Simone Biles[edit]

The American Cup is a prestigious competition that is listed in the medal table of many gymnastics champions including Mitsuo Tsukahara (for example). It's even mentioned as a major accomplishment in the header on Biles own page. Selectively targeting Simone Biles medal table to make it appear smaller and less prestigious than gymnasts like Aliya Mustafina or her other contemporaries is biased and unreasonable. "Long time users of Project Gymnastics" are NOT an authority on Wikipedia entries. The entries should be consistent from comparable athletes, and they should reflect the World Cup events. The only "consensus" that needs to be considered here is between the two people debating this wiki entry (you and I). Citing what an irrelevant subset of gymnastics fans think is not a valid argument for continuously removing a major credential from an Olympic champion's medal table. Its not a matter of "opinion", it's a matter of fact. As far as I'm concerned YOU are the one vandalizing the page, so if you want to take it to an administrator, I'm happy to do so. I intend to carry on undoing the damage you are doing to Simone Biles page. Captainbryce1 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Captainbryce1: It's funny that you call members of the project "irrelevant gymnastics fans", while at the same time I have never seen you doing anything for the Project at all, except time and time again trying to impose your own point of view. If other athletes have the American Cup listed on their medal record, this is wrong according to consensus, and I will remove them as soon as possible. I am merely keeping the page on par with the consensus, while all you do is to act as if your opinion is more important than consensus. There is no damage being done. I will ask again before contacting an administrator: will you please stop trying to impose your point of view and respect consensus? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@ThiagoSimoes: Your request is denied! Again, I'm not interested in your personal opinion, or the personal opinions of gymnastics fans with no credentials. One fan's opinion is no more relevant than another. What is relevant is consistency on Wikipedia pages, and fair and unbiased comparison between athletes (which Project Gymnastics is obviously not interested in). Therefore, I will appropriately and fairly add any important medals earned to Biles medal table. Further, I will undo any damage (in the way of removal of medals) done to the record table of other gymnasts. That is sabotage, and I think the admins will have more of a problem with that. And that is the last thing I have to say on this issue. Captainbryce1 (talk)
@Captainbryce1: I hope you eventually realize how biased your discourse is. You treat matters as a fan of Biles "defending" her from "evil" people who do not want to add medals earned by her to the medal record. I see matters as keeping consistency with the Project. The point is a discussion was made and everybody (or almost everybody) who took part in this discussion decided not to have World Cup stage medals (which the American Cup is part of) added to the medal record. Once again, you are stubborn beyond any possibility of consensus and I will explain the situation to an administrator from this point on. I hope you understand your actions are nocive to the Project, and your opinion should not prevail over consensus. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Athletics at the Olympics[edit]

Where is the source where shows that Brazil is ranked 33 instead of 32 at Athletics? Who is the Country ranked as 32? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandro Servulo (talkcontribs) 15:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Leandro Servulo: The medal table was an unsourced mess. I found a source for medals up to 2012, added the medals earned at the 2016 Olympics and reallocated the medals changed by doping offenses. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@ThiagoSimoes: Thank you for your revert, also, I figured out that On 16 August 2016, the Russian women's 4 × 100 metres relay team was disqualified for doping. Russian teammates were stripped of their gold Olympic medals, as Yuliya Chermoshanskaya had her samples reanalyzed and tested positive for two prohibited substances.[1] The IAAF is requested to modify the results accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.[2]. Leandro Servulo(talk) 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
List of changes in medal standings
Ruling date Sport Event Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
August 16, 2016 Athletics Women's 4 × 100 metres relay  Russia (RUS) −1 −1
 Belgium (BEL) +1 −1 0
 Nigeria (NGR) +1 −1 0
 Brazil (BRA) +1 +1

Therefore, now Belgium is ranked 32 and Brazil 33.

@Leandro Servulo: Yes, I've taken this under consideration. The table is updated correctly, I believe. Thanks for your input. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 South American Artistic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

Hi. User:Sander.v.Ginkel brought your contributions to my attention. I first looked at Victor Rostagno, where I saw that you sourced the basic facts, but not his accomplishments. The sources say nothing about e.g. the Panamerican championships or other championships.

I then looked at 2016 South American Artistic Gymnastics Championships, which you also created and which lists Rostagno as a gold medal winner. Looking at the sources, it is very unclear whether this is actually true. [1] (which I presume is the page you used?) gives the different results in the allround individual competition: but did this also count as the finals for the separate events? In some other major championships, these are done separately. In this case, I can find no indication either way. Do you have a better source with evidence of the medals for the individual events? That would also avoid such weird empty bits like the gold and silver medal for the men's vault competition. As far as I can glean from the texts like this, the individual finals would be had separately, but I haven't found results for this (are they even finished already? They seem to continue until today?). Fram (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Hello. This is something I have trouble when sourcing: some results are strictly confined to Facebook or Twitter, through the official pages of Consugi and the Mexican Gymnastics Federation. For example, the results for the apparatus finals at the 2014 South American Artistic Gymnastics Championships can currently only be accessed in a series of pictures on Twitter, through this [2] account. The same account also lists the results for the 2016 Artistic Gymnastics Championships. How do I source this when writing articles for Wikipedia? Similarly, the 2016 results have not been fully released yet. Consugi itself has apparently forgotten to publish the results for the men's vault final as of yet, but an Uruguayan website lists Rostagno as a bronze medal winner on Vault. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In such cases, it's much better not to write the articles, or in this case, to write the article but only to include the overall finals (individual and team), and not the results per event. The information you now have included is basically unverifiable and potentially wrong. Fram (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been a contributor for over 10 years, and my aim is to seriously document the results of the competitions before they get lost (the South American Gymnastics Federation is amateurish when it comes to publishing results, and the Pan American Gymnastics Union is a complete joke of a federation). As I said before, you only need to wait a couple days before the official results are published. But if I really need to, I will cite the tweets with the results so you will not complain on talk page from talk page anymore. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
If no reliable independent sources find these championships important enough to even report the results and all you have are tweets from the organisation, then don't bother. We are not a site to preserve primary source information, but to summarize seondary sources. Lacking those, it has no place here. Fram (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
These are official continental championships recognized by the International Gymnastics Federation. The fact that the continental federations are amateur and disorganized when it comes to publishing the results is not to be anyone's fault but their own. There are reports about the competitions, but usually in Spanish and Portuguese, and the reports are from newspapers from each country, so it would be better to mention summarized results. If you believe such articles "have no place here", then should we challenge and delete results from the Olympic Games, World Championships and European Championships as well? I am sorry, but this is absurd. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The only thing absurd is your hyperbole (comparing this to the Olympics, really?) and faiure to read correctly. I have just looked at 2014 South American Artistic Gymnastics Championships and the kind of tweets you use as sourcing[3]. These are not evidence of anything, all you have are partial names without the event or score. If you have been doing the same kind of stuff for ten years, I shudder to think what kind of rubbish sourcing we have all over Wikipedia. If we have, as you indicate, reliable secondary sources about this event (which is to be expected), then use those, not some "official" useless tweet which doesn't verify anything. These articles have no place here in the way you source them, the subject most likely has its place here. Fram (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
My comparison is not about the importance of each competition, but rather about the fact that these are sporting events and deserve to be here. If you think the sources are not appropriate, I would kindly ask you to e-mail the South American Gymnastics Federation and tell them that you need better sources. I have been in contact with them for months and they cannot even send me official results after many, many times I have asked them to do so. Once again: this is not anyone's fault except their own. The "useless" tweet is, like it or not, the only source of official information currently available. If this is "rubbish sourcing", then I urge you to do better, since all you do is complain without really doing anything to help at all. But at this point, and with the kind of offensive language you use, I am not sure you wish to help at all. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: these pages are valuable even if they are not the Olympics. ThiagoSimoes puts a lot of effort in getting his data, and did you find wrong data somewhere!? Like what should have been told to you, be kind to Wikipedia contributors. Thank them at first for their large amounts of effort they put into Wikipedia. After having done so you could say it's better to use secondary sources. Don't say reliable secondary sources about this event (which is to be expected) but show him a reference to help him. Don't say your opinion to loud, leave for instance the word useless in useless tweet, then you're still saying the same thing. Don't be someone who only say this, this and this is all wrong, but help. As an administrator you should work like that. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at that tweet I described as "useless". Because it can hardly be described as anything else. You two are hardworking editors, fine, that doesn't mean that everything you do is "great", which seems to be the impression Sander has. But I have had too many discussions with you now where you have shown unwillingness or incapability to read even the most basic things correctly, so I don't think more explanations will help. When you create thousands of articles, you shouldn't expect others to run around after you to clean up your many problematic edits, you should make an effort to severely reduce this kind of edits. When editors believe that you don't need sourcing in an article if the same fact is already sourced in another article, then there is a problem. If then it turns out that those facts are not sourced in the other article, then we have a much bigger problem. Fram (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: Okay, now this is just plain rude. You cannot use your status as an administrator to use this kind of language when addressing other editors. If only you had minimal knowledge about gymnastics, you would be able to identify each one of the symbols corresponding to the apparatus on those pictures. Just take a look a at pages 23 and 24 of the apparatus norms [4] by the International Gymnastics Federation and you will see what the icons represent. Now, instead of coming up with a better solution, or looking for a better source (which I have for the last few months, even contacting CONSUGI itself, with no results), all you can do is point out how you do not like the sources I use. Besides, you have been rude more than once, and instead you say that I am the one who cannot read things properly when your own text is full of typos. I have spent too many hours of my life looking for the results of many, many competitions, and you take one single example of a competition where the own federation which organized it was completely careless about publishing the results, and take it as personal matter about my contributions using such aggressive language and unnecessary rudeness. I have had enough by now. You have proven to be completely unfit as an administrator and contributor on this matter. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
ThiagoSimoes, my apologies, let me explain the confusion (which I only now realised with your latest reply). I looked at the txeet (the 2014 results one), saw two images side by side without any indication of which event they were for, and considered it useless. You clearly disagreed, but it wasn't clear to me why. Now I realise that the tweet as shown isn't enough, one has then to open the images to get the full picture, so to speak. I still think that using tweets for this (and in general, using images as sources) should be avoided at all costs, but my statement that that tweet was useless was based on how it appeared, not on what was further contained in it. So again, my apologies, I didn't look far enough with that tweet. Fram (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: Ok, apologies accepted, and I also apologize. Believe me, I have tried my best not to use tweets as sources, and I totally agree that tweets are not a good source for articles, but this is the best I can do when the federations are careless and amateur. Now Consugi has updated the results for the 2016 edition [5], at least. The problem is that the Pan American Gymnastics Federation now does not even have its own website anymore (it used to be this one [6], but it is down at the moment), so I am afraid I might still have to use tweets for documenting the results of the next competitions. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I don't like it, but I understand why you do it, and I'll leave you to it. Just, where possible, try to source things in their own article (e.g. at the athlete article), not only at some linked article (e.g the competition). But I'll leave you alone now and won't bother you further. 05:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Like I said there is no need to state your opinion, but with many occasions you seems to have troubles with reading and writing. For you this tweet is useless, for other people this tweet is not useless, because only you thinks it, it isn't a useless tweet. And second thing and this is already the second time I say this, I never said everything he did is great. And you are saying I have had too many discussions with you now where you have shown unwillingness or incapability to read even the most basic things correctly. Again, try to stay kind. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You claimed "See for example the great contributions of ThiagoSimoes (talk · contribs) who add all these medal templates to gymnasts." I looked at his most recent one, noticed serious sourcing problems, and discussed them here. He raised the issue of using tweets, and looking at the example he provided, it was clearly insufficient to actually source what it was supposed to source (e.g. how can you tell from these images which events they are about?). Feel free to indicate where "you seems to have troubles with reading and writing" though. Fram (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I was refering to his contribution of adding medal templates, because that was where our discussion was about. But probably you didn't understand that, even when I already told you before My points was that his addition of adding medal templates to articles are great (19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)). Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
But this is not where this discussion should be about. Let's keep topic. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, ThiagoSimoes. 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)

usernames[edit]

Read the article on thagomizer. Inspiration, or just coincidence? DS (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Asian spektakraw Championship[edit]

hi, pls creat page :

http://www.sepaktakraw.org/2nd-asian-sepaktakraw-championship-will-korea-defend-their-asian-champion-title/ http://takrawthailandleague.com/2nd- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimflower (talkcontribs) 11:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Gymnastics_Championships&oldid=801044496[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Gymnastics_Championships&oldid=801044496

hi dear , i am complete Asian Gymnastics Championships , but admind removed them. please see it and reverted and complete them. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinvenkawahara (talkcontribs) 12:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Volleyball players layout[edit]

Hello there is a discussion about the volleyball players layout being held in the WikiProject Volleyball talk page. Please visit us and help us with your contributions. --Osplace 17:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Empy charts[edit]

Hello, for future reference, please do not create empty charts that do not convey any useful information. And do not threaten people with edit warring when they fix your mistakes. Thank you ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled right[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi ThiagoSimoes, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! œ 08:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (1999 Pan American Aerobic Gymnastics Championships) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating 1999 Pan American Aerobic Gymnastics Championships, ThiagoSimoes!

Wikipedia editor Jamez42 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Complete list

To reply, leave a comment on Jamez42's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Jamez42 (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, ThiagoSimoes. 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)