|
Hello, Mcorrlo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being " adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray ( talk) 14:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Getting Started
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
Policies and Guidelines
|
|
|
The Community
|
|
|
Things to do
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your edit on Imran Khan. The problem was that a vandal uploaded the vulgar image as the latest version of a Commons file. I have reported the problem at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. If an administrator has removed the section at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Wasana boro, it will mean that the administrator has addressed the problem. Peaceray (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Hello, I'm Izzy Moony. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sasebo slashing, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Izzy MoonyHi new friend! 23:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mcorrolo,
Our Lady of Fatima is on my watch list, and this edit showed up with an edit summary "reverting" vandalism. The edits reverted rather clearly are not vandalism as defined on Wikipedia, but appear to be a good faith content dispute. I know editors reverting edits can be frustrating, but mislabeling such edits is not helpful to other neutral editors trying to understand the dispute, and doesn't not help built consensus. It instead leads to more conflict and anger. In the extreme, mislabeling edit summaries can be itself be considered disruptive, and may lead to loss of editing privileges. I'd recommend looking into WP:Dispute resolution to work through whatever is going on in the article. –Zfish118⋉talk 11:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Zfish118.
- First I must say that I am Portuguese, I learned to talk and write in English at school, but it was many years ago, so I beg your pardon for my maybe poor english.
- I am sorry to say the repeated reversions by Rafaelosornio are in my view just vandalism. The main issue in dispute is how the image of the Lady changed as time went by. I cited many times a book by the cathiolic church itself, the Documentação Crítica de Fátima -Seleção de documentos (1917-1930). That is not enough for Rafaelosornio - he erases everything he dislikes.
- I lived under dictator right wing Salazar, and after Marcelo Caetano. We could then get in serious trouble if we spoke against priests, the church, Fatima, etc. Are we going back? Are we erasing history? Because it is History this is all about. 2001:818:DD4E:FB00:ED2E:477D:691B:BC86 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I am mcorrlo. Iwas logged out by some reason and I did not notice.
~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Our Lady of Fátima. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello DuncanHill.
- Edit warring was started by Rafaelosornio, who is a vandal. Did you warned him too? I was at the talk page, with no results. Do you want to block me for editing about history with lots of reliable sources??? and Church sources too? Mcorrlo (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I warned both of you. I suggest that if you can't resolve your differences on the article talk page then you find an appropriate noticeboard or see dispute resolution. See the links in my message above. DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Portuguese Inquisition you included material copied/translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thank you, I didn't think it was necessary, especially as I was one of the main editors of the Portuguese version. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessary if you are the sole author. But it's helpful to patrollers such as myself. — Diannaa (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning Diannaa.
- I'm Portuguese, I used to edit on the Portuguese wiki, and my edits on the English wiki usually, though not always, include material copied and/or translated from the Portuguese wiki, usually from pages where I was the main editor. Why is that? Because there would be no point in re-searching research that has already been done. But since there seems to be a problem with that, I'll include the warning in my edits. Thank you.
~~~~ Mcorrlo (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.
I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, S Philbrick.
- I am portuguese, and I used to edit in the pportuguese wiki. Of course, some parts of my editions in english wikipedia are translated, with some minor changes, from my own editions in portuguese wiki. I always try to cite not using the exact words of the books I cite, and I think there is no other way to do it honestly, is there?
- What would you do? Mcorrlo (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Now I discovered https://www.trenfo.com/en/history/portuguese-inquisition. It is them that are copying me. Or , better said my editions and others from wikipedia just like they say it at the bottom of their site. Please revert your reversion. Mcorrlo (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith of your fellow editors, and do not attack them. Personal attacks in edit summaries, such as the one you made here, are especially frowned on. Bishonen | tålk 22:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- All other wikis accept the so called "·ufologists" opinion. The english wiki follows now the mainstream opinion: all nuts!
- I know I wont get an answer, but is it clearly written somewhere we can not cite all that is written by them? And who said ufology is a science? Of course not and the opinion ofserious "ufologists" is that it is not - it is investigation, report, whatever.
- What does matter is the message, not the messenger. Still think the page is strongly biased. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China? Did you click on my links? What I am warning you against is assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, specifically this assumption of bad faith/personal attack: "To me it seems like you found a way to censorship." Comment on content, not on contributors. Civility is policy here. Is that clearer? Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Oh, I do not know the price of tea in China. Mcorrlo (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China" was a link. You're expected to follow it. Please click on the link now. Bishonen | tålk 14:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- I sincerely hope that is not an order. Good afternoon, Bishonen. Keep calm, I understand your thinking, but I still have the same opinion. Greetings! Mcorrlo (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Your edit to Portuguese Inquisition has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Austronesier. I noticed that you recently removed content from Indonesia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You can't get consensus for "your" addition, so you just blank out some other text in return? Austronesier (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. Sorry but I have no time or patience to discuss what is a no sense issue. Is my edition in "Indonesia" wrong? Is it not true? How many letters am i allowed to write about timor?
- I know the issue is a sensitive subject and the Indonesian, or some Indonesian, don't like to talk about it.That does not mean to erase my editions under "WP" pretexts. Mcorrlo (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Help:Translation and do what you can do fix it.This is the same as moving text from one article to another without attribution, which is also a breach of copyright. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Doug Weller. I added two:
- Father René Laurentin was a French theologian.
- Patrick Sbalchiero , is a french historian and journalist
- Cardinal Etchegaray is french too and prefaced the book about the apparitions.
- Auguste Meessen, is a professor (physics, quantum mechanics) at the Université catholique de Louvain.
- I think they are reliable, but...
- The last phrase seems to me like commom sense... but what do I know? Mcorrlo (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, bad link. I've changed it now, reply there if you want to comment. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think you need to reply there as it seems you may have misrepresented the source enriching any case wasn’t reliably published. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inquisition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guillaume Arnaud. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello ! Thank you, I made the correction. Mcorrlo (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mcorrlo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Islamophobia that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Please do not add or change content, as you did at Islamophobia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Doug Weller talk 09:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell Doug Weller. I am sorry, I thought that could be done. In other languages wikis, we do not do that, we cite thebooks and only in the article text we cite page number. But, ok! Mcorrlo (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doug Weller: There are several citaions to that work in the article, not all to the same page. The edit looks good to me. DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Well, wait and see... ? Mcorrlo (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @DuncanHill The page number has been restored, but sources added without page numbers. Multiple citations should be combined with the different page numbers. @Mcorrlo see Help:References and page numbers. No one should have to search a book for something. It's not a problem for articles, but we normally give the page range for journals etc. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doug Weller: I can't see any references to Miles and Brown without page numbers, they all use sfn. DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you reinstated one of the quotes I removed from that page. The reason I removed it was to negate the need for the hatnote (which I also removed). The quote you reinstated essentially says there is something to fear about Islam, and I think they crosses the threshold for impartiality. I don’t want to see anyone reinstate the hatnote, so I’m writing to ask if you’d reconsider your edit. Cheers, Obscurasky (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning, Obscurasky. I don't intend to reconsider my edit, which would be to accept your point of view, but I won't object to you deleting it. I don't feel like getting involved in editing wars. I'm guessing you don't want my personal opinion, but yes, there is something to fear in Islam, that is, in the religious far right extremism of Islam, just as there is something to fear in the religious extremism of the Christian far right (see the Inquisition), or far right Buddhism, or far right Hinduism. The term Islamophobia, which almost everyone recognizes as misconceived, is a bag that fits everything, and that's why it's such a beloved term by fundamentalists. If you read the Islamophobia page, you'd think that the so-called Islamophobes are all from the extreme right, but that's not true.
- As far as bias is concerned, the very first paragraph of the page mentions that Islamophobia is the "irrational fear of...", which has nothing impartial about it. Having said that, and to clarify things, I think there is racism essentially based on skin tone, and I am against it. Mcorrlo (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eg changing the word religious to doctrine does not meet WP:MINOREDIT. I am also asking you to show where the source says doctrine. Note that if you do not provide this I will at least page block you. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me you are very sensitive about words. I made another edition using the terms used in the sources.
- And I promise I will never make any minor edition because several editors find they are not minor. I hope that would be Ok. Mcorrlo (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sensitive, just a very experienced editor (over 250,000 edits) with a good grasp of policy. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please again, show me where the sources use the term. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the sources do not use the term. Unfortunally then it seems I can not use it. But to me it is real islamphobia, only an "internal islamophobia". Mcorrlo (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mcorrlo Thanks. Looking at the sources again, I think "religious doctrine" matches the sources better than "Islamic doctrine', but I guess that's no big deal. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm going to need to remove the source you added to Brian Dunning, but I wanted to explain why. While I have a lot of time for Rebecca Watson, the article is self-published as a blog post. That creates a problem, because under the Biographies of Living People policy it is very clear that we cannot use self-published sources when writing about living people, unless they are used to express the view of the author (and ideally only when the author is also the subject of the article). While that can be limiting, there are enough mistakes in blogs to make it a good rule - there are still mistakes made even in articles where there is an independent editor, but the risk when there isn't one is much higher. In this case though, we don't really need Watson, as we already have Ars Technica as a source, and that meets the policy requirements. Thus the Watson article isn't needed as a reference. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok thank you for your words. Sorry, I did not realize it was a blog. Mcorrlo (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem at all. Thanks for considering the issue. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
