User talk:HistorianM

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Arthur Brum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, HistorianM, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ^theWOLFchild 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Brazil

I urge you to stop changing the layout of the Brazil article with images of much lower quality. You added an additional image in the "Economy" section that did not even fit in the content and changed the image of the Central Bank for a poor quality image taken from inside a car (you can see the reflection of the glass), much worse than it was previously in the page. What is your problem? Can't you identify things like lighting, framing, and resolution when choosing a photo? Chronus (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look my dear, I'm just doing needed changes and no image had low quality, like that one I changed from the BR-116 road. The image I added to the "Economy" section fits well since display, since it shows the central point of most of the financial activity of the country, inclusively, follows the pattern shown in the articles of other countries as quoted. The Central Bank image I agree, since ther is no image with a better quality that fits the tiny space. But the KC-390's current image you added is by far worse than the previous one, so okay, you may not like that one that I added so I reverted to the first photo ever there. Already that economic booklet, in the size that was placed, is too small to be noticed for what it is. It would look better where it is in the article about Brazil's economy, not there, while it makes much more sense to show the economic center of the country for you to say that the image does not fit in the content. It is the way on the United Kingdom article, the Argentina article, the Russia article, the Croatia article, the Israel article, etc. How it does not fit the content? I urge you to let people do their job too, we're all trying to make a good article. HistorianM (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, I'm doing this. But this is just because every edition I made is undone or altered at the pleasure of a particular editor for no apparent reason. I left a message on the tak page of the article as well as on the editor's personal talk page, but in the article he does not even respond, and on the staff he just says "stop! Your images are horrible!" I have tried to argue, but he is apparently irremediable and acts as if every issue of the article needs to pass his approval, as if he owns the article. I understand the policy of wikipedia, but how can I protect my work if I am warned when I try to do it while whoever hinders it goes unpunished and refuses to debate the matter, as even dictates the norms of the page? I hope I do not disrespect any site policy, but would like my work also protected and not simply thrown away because of the ego of some editors. HistorianM (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:HistorianM reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see that you do not care about users who act as if they own the articles, or as if the articles were your personal blogs, just for their erroneous rules that punish those who try to protect their work from the abuse of other editors. As I said, I contacted another editor and on the article page and was ignored. I did my part. At first, I did the editing that was continually undone without justification. But who am I to be punished for violating the rules about undoing edits? For trying to protect my job? Sure, perfect. HistorianM (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the complaint at the edit warring board with advice for you to wait for consensus at Talk:Brazil before making further image changes that may be controversial. When editors disagree, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imperial Museum of Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Hilaire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest urban agglomerations in Brazil

What do you think about this version? Chronus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! The Recife photo is by far better, indeed. And although the one in São Paulo has a not-so-good quality, it's good enough to illustrate a small square. Should apply. HistorianM (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. In particular, do not label a revert of a good-faith guideline-based edit as minor. DrKay (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]