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.
I'll try to convert all the charts, starting with the ones with more cases, when I have the opportunities. Different versions and divergences spread like Coronavirus... Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:
@*angys*: SOLVED. The problem arises because {{#time:M}} in the Chinese wiki returns a Chinese formatted month (1月, 3月...) while the togglesbar and manual id attribution used English format (jan, mar...). The problem could be solved by messing with {{#time:}} to return English months, but I think you will prefer to switch all (jan, mar...) to (1月, 3月...); check my sandbox. Also, don't forget to update the Row template which now uses {{#time:U}} instead of {{#time:z}} to deal with date differences in different years. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 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)[reply]
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 Ntalk/contrib04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcncv: I'm working on that right now in sandbox 1, where I also implemented year toggles. I would disapprove porting (although I could still check) their code here though as I think they should have discussed/contributed here in the first place. This is where the template originated and it should remain the centralized place for core development. The basic principle of this template is unity. Besides, I have recently improved a bit the internacionalization and compatibility with other wiki projects. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
I'm aware that I very likely won't be able to convince you. That final comment was pretty much a last attempt to counter you, thus the perceptible frustration. But what's strangest is the apparent lack of participation. I wonder if I should advertise the RfC in more places. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[3] - Thank you for discussion at RSNB. My next RSNB thread (if any) will be about depreciating Russian MoD as a source. As about your last comment, 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.My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
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.
Honestly man, kind of a mean move of yours to threaten me like that. Kinda feels like abuse of power. I've already explained this in the noticeboard, but dialogue should have been used in that list page before that aggressive revert out of the blue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive results
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)[reply]
I know your point, but I can't just edit war to force them into submission. We have to "beat them at their own game". I'm focusing on the battle of Bakhmut page now though. Only then will I put more effort in the counteroffensive page to try to reach a new consensus or at least objectively disqualify the stubborn votes. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you quote? Because I read again and couldn't find a definitive explanation. The word "user" is used 4 times, none relating to user talk pages. Furthermore, this isn't a page about the topic, it's just a user talk page for any kind of question/notice... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure – 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)[reply]
Well, this feels like a stretch even considering "broadly construed". The definition could easily be improved to clear out any such confusions, for example, by mentioning "in all namespaces" and when talking about pages with content about X, by saying "including topics".
But regardless, I think your overall argument falls apart because of the core exception principle of "constructiveness". What is and isn't constructive in a personal talk page? This page has no goal. It doesn't aim to build anything or any article. It's, among other things, a place to simply talk with other editors. Be it a question, raise a concern, etc. Therefore, it should be at my discretion to decide if another user's comment/questions are constructive or not or simply welcome or not. As such, I vehemently disagree that casual interactions between editors in their personal space should be affected by any form of general topic sanction. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "constructive" is regarding the exception for "the 'Talk:' namespace", which this page here is not a part of. "Pages" is a term that refers to pages in... all namespaces, as opposed to "articles", for example. The wording of the extended-confirmed restriction at WP:GS/RUSUKR is arguably a bit outdated and a community discussion is needed to determine if the new (stricter) WP:ARBECR wording should apply to the Russo-Ukrainian War too.
Whether a message on your talk page (which isn't a personal webhosting space but also part of Wikipedia) is removed is usually your own decision, and in this specific case here I'd say it is. I have thus not re-removed the content but replied to the edit summary of Special:Diff/1194062388, which displayed a misunderstanding I wanted to correct.
For LegendaryChristopher, however, it is important to know what is affected by the restriction and what isn't, and neither your goodwill nor your disagreement would protect them from being sanctioned for continuing to discuss the Russo-Ukrainian War outside of the "Talk:" namespace, or – and that is another issue with their message – for continuing to discuss user conduct in this area, which is an internal project discussion that is prohibited even in the "Talk:" namespace.
Thanks for the clarifications. I agree with many of your comments (including that LegendaryChristopher should beware of these extended restrictions and that there is no "safe haven" to avoid the sanction).
I would suggest though revising the RUSUKR sanction page to clarify these matters. For example, what about other Talk namespaces like Module Talk and Template Talk? They should also offer exceptions for constructive comments. I would also encourage making the situation about User Talk clearer: that they may still be subject to the sanction, but that the host user has more liberty to keep or remove such comments at their discretion. This is to avoid the "censorship" stigma where 2 users can't talk about a subject even if both consent to do so.
Regarding themy "beat at their own game" remark, that's clearly a very informal exaggeration, which I wouldn't repeat if I was to make the same reply again. My position in the article talk pages has been clear since the beginning. What is meant is that I would have to "beat their arguments" by following the standard processes and rules of Wikipedia, such as RfCs, and proper analysis. In other words, if they don't take compromises and sometimes selectively or overly stick to rules and recommendations, then I would have to take the hard path of coming up with an extremely solid and non-subjective argument to make it clear that they are making a mistake. But this is all besides the point (of the RUSUKR scope discussion) though. Regards. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I had misunderstood the "own game" quote. What you describe sounds like a perfectly fine approach; a kind of "you want an RfC, you get an RfC" – that's fair.
Yeah, the entire concept of these sanctions, previously even more complex, is slowly improving but still a complexity nightmare. Often enough I see experienced users, even administrators, confused by the terms and rules.
I also like the point of two users talking about a subject and both consenting to do so. LegendaryChristopher didn't come here to annoy you, and you weren't annoyed by their message. A possible argument for still prohibiting this would be their ability to canvass or influence you, and perhaps the community's unwillingness to allow such influence. I don't know. Another interesting issue is the creation of drafts ("Draft:" namespace) which is also prohibited despite just being a large form of an edit request (which is allowed). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you very much for this well written reminder. I respect you a lot.
It is pretty obvious that I engage heavily with editors that I believe repeat flawed or tangential arguments without good faith. This isn't new, not even in that page. Back in the day of the battle of Robotyne, I had a pretty heated discussion with Scu ba. Looking back at it now, I notice quite a few mistakes on my part. Ever since, and including the battle of Bakhmut page, I've really tried avoiding getting personal while still putting pressure on flawed arguments and consequently the editors making them. This is not really unexpected from a minority voice. Usually, I was most vocal when I felt alone in the discussions.
Well, anyways, in this recent specific case, after perhaps the most disconnected and, in my view stubborn reply, I let the anger took over me and thought that that was the best opportunity to be spicy. I've been holding it for a long time and let it slide that time because, of all the possible insults, that was one of the weakest. But obviously it was wrong. While I could have argued that Slatersteven's obstructive behavior in that page could have been taken to ANI, he also could have equally taken my comment there too. Well, in that incident he was intelligent to once again take a tangent but this time to correctly de-escalate the situation. I appreciated that.
But in the end, the most stupid move was mine to try to directly pinch him. Well, I'll try my best to not repeat such blatant behavior again, while still constructively debating. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appreciated. I'm a bit traumatized to put in the time to add the missing info to the aftermath section, I don't know why. In the analyses of sources I made in the previous RfC, I and Cinderella pointed out some great sources that could also be used in the aftermath I think. Not much is missing, just tell that the battle is generally considered a Russian victory, albeit a qualified one, show the counterpoint that some sources made preliminary analyses suggesting it was pyrrhic, and say that the city was the largest city taken/recaptured in 2023. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So can it be labeled as a "Pyrrhic Russian-DPR victory" when the aftermath section is done? Because while Russia and their allies (By allies I'm talking about the Donetsk people's militia and Wagner) lost more soldiers than Ukraine the capture of Bakhmut was a huge blow to Ukraine. Salfanto (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also what parts is the aftermath section missing? Reactions? Casualty reports? What Russia gains from capturing Bahkmut? What Ukraine loses from losing Bahkmut? Etc. If I know what to look for I can help better. Salfanto (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it "pyrrhic" in the infobox seems unlikely as it would require extensive sourcing and general consensus. There has been a revival of activity there. The best way for you to know what's missing is checking out the Aftermath section there. I still think some more details could be added, tweaks, etc. I'll be working there too. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war February 2024
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey there. I just want to know when and how it would be appropriate to put the results of Bakhmut into the infobox given the overwhelming consensus. Would there be an appropriate date to do it or must we wait for something else? 42Grunt (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just need to finish up the Aftermath section. This has been Cinderella's request since the beginning. But I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask again, I mean, we do already have something reasonable there.Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Of course, it may be worth starting a new discussion but I have doubts about a different consensus developing as it has not has been long enough for this to be included as stable information. It could be argued that Ukraine is unlikely to be able to take back those settlements, though this may be seen as WP:CRYSTAL, and then there is also the current and upcoming Russian offensives. Personally I do not think it makes sense to include control for a few occupied settlements and not all of them, but then making such mass changes when this has been discussed before with no consensus to do this would likely be seen as disruptive. Mellk (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to both seek clarification and to defend oneself but there is a risk of appearing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and dig the hole deeper. This is a case where less is better. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May 2024
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
I've been following some topics on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict for a while, and am really unpleasantly surprised at the clear bias that exists on Wikipedia.
The amount of stalling everything that doesn't directly benefit one narrative, and all by the same handful of editors across multiple topics is really sad to witness.
The abuse of Wikipedia's lengthy processes is also rampant, even though the outcome is hardly contested.
A constant on all of these is also you, very patiently fighting an uphill battle. I thank you for doing your best to restore at least some balance to these topics. 62.4.57.152 (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hello! For medical cases chart, do you know a simple mechanism to have right1data display the sum of 3rd (confirmed) and 4th (suspected) case classification? Horizon Sunset (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
