Hello, Alexiscoutinho, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you know were the extra line break is coming from? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We at
Wikiproject Medicine would like to thank you for your contribution now during the
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. We are far from out of the woods with regard to the pandemic and understand that your focus may lie on coronavirus efforts.
We would still like to shine a light on our active medical community, which you are more than welcome to join. As a participant you can ask questions and get help about best practices on editing any health or medical article — on our
talk-page. We are a (mostly) collegial bunch, and I do hope you feel welcome to participate.
Currently there are two active communities:
Please join up!
Best regards, Carl Fredrik talk 15:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I tried to import templates into zh.wiki but cannot use this feature. do you know how to fix this? I am looking forward for your reply. angys ( Talk Talk) 13:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I think there is a problem for this feature, only works in en.wiki. All templates and modules has been update. angys ( Talk Talk) 12:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
factor
(which should be called divisor
) is too small. If you convert to the new data
parameter you don't have to worry about it anymore. I converted a bunch of the larger charts to this new standard in the en wiki.
Alexiscoutinho (
talk) 12:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)rows
parameter will be deprecated.
Alexiscoutinho (
talk) 02:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Hi Alexiscoutinho - you obviously found a solution for the /doc for the Medical cases chart, and it's presumably a more standard fix than my hack. :)
Which edit fixed the bug? I don't see anything obvious in these two edits that you did not long ago. Boud ( talk) 15:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.
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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
Hi Alexiscoutinho. First thanks for all your work in the medical cases chart. I'm writing regarding the year-ambiguity in the filter buttons. As you might already be aware, selecting the either Jan filter is being applied equally to both Jan 2020 and Jan 2021. See Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases chart. The apparent solution would be to change the mw-customcollapsible-MMM tag from being month-specific to month/year-specific. I dug around a bit and it appear that this has already been fixed on the Italian Wikipedia. They also changed the filter button layout to include the year.
Can that change be ported back here? At least the month-year tag logic? I'd take a stab at it myself, but an not familiar with the particular program language used. Thanks. -- Tom N talk/ contrib 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:Medical cases chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX talk 20:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Chandigarh medical cases chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej ( talk) 09:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Chhattisgarh medical cases chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej ( talk) 09:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Himachal Pradesh medical cases chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej ( talk) 09:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Ladakh medical cases chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej ( talk) 09:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India/Tripura medical cases chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej ( talk) 09:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. GordonGlottal ( talk) 22:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Alexiscoutinho! Based on your contributions, I can see you have an interest in the overall Russia/Ukraine war. Well, I am currently in the process of getting the battle of Kherson article up to the status of a good article. Would you mind taking a look at the article and seeing if anything should be fixed prior to the GA nomination? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I haven't had a notification of a question from you on commons, and don't see on on my talk page there. What are you referring to? ( Hohum @) 10:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
the taking over the last suburb of Marinka by Russian forces is insignificant. Unlike the defeat of Russian fleet in Black Sea, which is definitely of high strategical significance.Your assumptions lack context. I'm just going to say this. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 23:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Volunteer Marek 21:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm contacting you if any consensus has been finally reach regarding 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive? I still strongly believe that the results should be changed to Ukrainian Failure/Russian Strategic Victory. It's a Ukrainian failure as Ukrainian failed to make any strategic gains and failed to achieve it's main goal which was to reach the Sea of Azov and split the Russian Forces in Southern Ukraine into two and failed it's minimum goal which was to breakthrough Russian defensive lines and capture Tokmak. It's a Russian Strategic Victory because Russia prevented Ukraine from making any significant breakthroughs and weakening their forces enough that now they've started counter-attacking and recapturing territory that Ukraine capture during the counteroffensive. It's unfair in my opinion that we can't make these changes because of two editors who are obviously bias towards Ukraine can't accept the reality of the failed counteroffensive even with even sources acceptable my Wikipedia standards admitting it as a failure and geolocation footage showing it. I'm hopeful you can talk sense to these editors but highly doubt it since they've already started censoring other editors who call them out on it. LegendaryChristopher ( talk) 07:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, ...and just as you say, user talk page messages are not listed as an exception. This means that the restriction also applies to user talk page messages about the Russo-Ukrainian war. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 03:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a passerby... thank you for your seemingly boundless patience with regards to the Ukraine war articles, such as the Battle of Bakhmut. You are neutral and meticulous with your arguments, and you tolerate some of the most inane, facetious obstacles thrown your way. I would not have had similar patience were I in your shoes. 2601:85:C100:46C0:F9DF:5C57:B21D:ABFE ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Alex, you were made DS aware, that the Balkans or Eastern Europe are a topic designated as contentious. I would hope that you have read the links from that notice and understood what that means generally and more specifically with respect to civility when interacting with other editors. The posting of the DS alert to your page was not a threat nor did imply anything about your conduct at the time it was posted. It is a standard process of informing editors that are active in topics that are considered contentious and higher than usual expectations about user conduct.
However, I would raise with you your recent conduct at the battle of Bakhmut talk page.
This edit where you ask ... are you stupid?
clearly crosses a bright line of incivility. It is unacceptable and could very well lead to sanctions if taken to ANI or arbitration enforcement. Your subsequent posts are not much better, in my opinion.
There will always be times when you and another editor disagree. There is nothing wrong with a robust debate but one should always address the argument and not the individual. You should always try to WP:AVOIDYOU. I would hope you realise that what I am writing here is a totally different circumstance. I would hope you would consider how I write on discussion talk pages. I very rarely address a comment to a particular editor by their user name or by using you. I stay focused on the arguments and evidence, not the individual making them. You might think an argument is stupid because you see it as being logically flawed or falling to one of the many fallacious argument strategies. Explain why it is flawed or fallacious. Simply labelling the argument or the editor making it with pejorative terms (eg this argument is stupid) proves absolutely nothing.
I hope that you will reflect on what I have said and modify your behavior instead of letting your passion get the better of you. I would hope that you will strike the uncivil comment I have specifically identified and other similar comments in your recent edits. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you need help with the Battle of Bakhmut aftermath section? Salfanto ( talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Alexiscoutinho! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Please stop pushing your edits with edit war [4] [5] . If your edits are reverted, you need to reach the consensus on a talk page before re-adding them. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Alex, you might gather that I am somewhat reserved about changing the present guidance. However, this does not mean that I am not open to considering a proposal and assessing it on its merits. What we really need from you is something concrete to consider rather than a notion that is vague and fuzzy. It doesn't need to be perfect. The purpose of discussion is to throw ideas back and forth as an iterative process of refinement. In the discussion at the template TP, I am trying to guide you toward this. Also, don't be too ambitious and suggest a lot of things at once. People may object to one thing in a group and this can lead to the group being rejected. I gather that one thing you would like to see is an option for operational success/failure. Why not just make this a proposal that we can discuss further. I am not closed to such an idea but I can also see a lot of issues that could arise from this. These issues would need to be resolved before I would be comfortable with it.
I came here to give you a gentle push in the right direction (at least, where I think you want to go) :) The discussion should really continue back at the infobox TP. Cheers, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 11:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Vladimir Putin Interview. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Additionally: We also have rules against canvassing, WP:CANVASSING. Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Module:Lua set has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 08:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the part about no consensus, I was referring to this RfC in which there was no consensus to include control in the infobox for settlements occupied since 2022. Since the frontlines were constantly changing, most people did not think it would make sense to include something in the infobox as a result, since this information is not stable. Mellk ( talk) 21:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)