User talk:Fernandoe
|
Pedro II of Brazil
[edit]For the second time you have added wrong information on article Pedro II of Brazil. If that's only a naive mistake, that's ok. If you don't know, royalty do not have surnames and the article Early life of Pedro II of Brazil tells that with several different sources. However, if you insist you continuing on doing that, it will be considered vandalism and I shall report your actions to an Administrator. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Fernandoe, I've started an arbitration session to be settled by an arbitration committee here. Please type your rationale for adding the name of Royal Houses into the full name of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is my last warning to you. You have changed a direct quotation taken from a book. You can not do that. --Lecen (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is wrong with you? THe source is the dictionary written by Sérgio Buarque de Holanda published in 1977. You can not simply change a quotation taken directly from the book. Stop, I'm telling you to. --Lecen (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- If the quotation says "John has gone to the forest" because that's how is written in the book you can not change it to "John has gone to the lake". --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Edits to Pedro II
[edit]Please refrain from repeated reverts without making your case on the article's discussion page.
Before you reinsert information which has been challenged, please include a reference. Information which is changed or added without a backup citation from sources is reasonably removed by other editors. You have yet to add sources to back up your edits, and insistence on repeatedly putting in unsupported material, especially material which has been challenged by other editors, begins to seem disruptive rather than constructive. Continuing to edit in this way will bring the situation to the attention of administrators. • Astynax talk 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Notice: 23 February 2010
[edit]Please note that one of Wikipedia's policies is that material cannot be reinserted by a single editor into the same article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You have performed three such revisions in the past 4 hours. As I indicated, you must have sources to support your edits, particularly when challenged by editors. You are welcome to discuss your reasons behind your edits on the article's discussion page. On the basis that you have not supported your edits and changes to sourced quotations, I have removed your last revision. Please do not attempt to restore the content again, as doing so will likely result in your being made subject to a block. Thank you. • Astynax talk 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your continuing use of reversions has now been reported here. • Astynax talk 04:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Being discussed
[edit]Some of your edits are being discussed here and it would be to your advantage to participate in that discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since you ignored the discussion and insists on vandalizing I will request your indefinite block so that you won't be able to edit in Wikipedia ever again. Have a nice day. --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Royalty and nobility discussion
[edit]Fernandoe, the true issue here lies in the fact that as an editor, you cannot continue to work in a vacuum without finding consensus (Visit here for the Portuguese Wikipedia article on consenso) with fellow editors. Edits en masse without consensus, especially when a majority is not in agreement with those edits, inherently causes conflict. Many of these editors in disagreement with your edits attempted to resolve their dispute (Como resolver disputas) with you, and you chose to not participate. I appreciate your good faith (Assumir a boa-fé), but I do not agree with your edits and do not agree with your unilateral actions. Wikipedia articles retain their qualities through internal citations, and you cannot make your changes without citing your sources. Your original research (Nada de pesquisa inédita) will not be tolerated here. With that said, I am willing to work with you to find a solution to this dispute and repair your standing. Your participation in Wikipedia is appreciated. Caponer (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Fernandoe, per your comment about adding the additional titles belonging to Prince Gaston, Count of Eu, I would do the following. Check out the formatting at Charles Ferdinand, Prince of Capua#Titles, styles, honours and arms, and in a similar fashion, list the titles belonging to Prince Gaston, Count of Eu and make sure to include internal citation. It is not necessary to include the dates if the dates of his ownership of the titles is not known. Please feel free to let me know if you have any additional questions, Fernandoe. --Caponer (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
warning about unreferenced additions
[edit]Please don't add unrefenced information, especially to already poorly referenced articles, such Maria II of Portugal. Sory, I had to revert your edit. Please read and understand the wikipedia policy WP:CITE. - Altenmann >t 05:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Orleans-Braganza…
[edit]is the Dynastic House that bears the Imperial House of Brazil. The Dynasty changed by the marriage of Elizabeth with Gaston. It is symbolized by the escutcheon inserted at the centre of the Imperial blazon. The current Chief of the Imperial House is also the Chief of the House of Orleans-Braganza. Just again, you promote edit warring with lack of information. Again, you show to be a vandal. --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Alfeu Adolfo Monjardim de Andrade e Almeida
[edit]Fernandoe, I've taken a look at the article for Alfeu Adolfo Monjardim de Andrade e Almeida and made the following corrections/additions to it. I added some additional internal Wikipedia links to other articles, added categories based upon information within the article, and added sections to allow for better flow within the article. It still needs further tweaking and will, of course, require internal citations. --Caponer (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)