User talk:Aarfrunzindin

Boas noites, caro compatriota,

já escrevi na "talk" do artigo em resposta à sua intervenção. Neste artigo (eu não concordo, mas é assim que se faz na WP), todos os nomes dos clubes estão comprimidos na história, portanto escrever "FC Porto" quando nunca é feito na mesma é contraditório.

Nunca quis patrulhar nada nem ser "iluminado", estou aqui há 16 anos e só quero ajudar. Atentamente, resto de boa semana. RevampedEditor (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that the addition is or is not adequately sourced but rather whether it is a criticism of economics as a discipline. It is not obvious that it is. Criticism of central banks etc or of their operating theories (e.g., monetarism) belongs in those articles, not this one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cristiano Ronaldo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aarfrunzindin! I have to admit that I did not expect such a friendly response. The process whereby Diocles' history was inflated with convincing details and conclusions is probably worth an article in itself - based, perhaps, on the very rapid dissemination of a rather wobbly but highly entertaining original article and a series of truths, half-truths and unprofessional guesses from a professional historian who should (and maybe even does, by now) know better. There's a resounding silence on the matter in current scholarship! Haploidavey (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We must stick to the truth, verifiable facts and the scientific method. The number and variety of published articles from reputable organizations like the BBC and the Portuguese newspaper Observador, among many others from several different countries, stating that he was known as the Lamecus or was from Lamecum (from Lamego in Portugal) isn't good enough. But for the same reason, we must find anyway a reputed, independent source to place in the final sentence of the article which says that Both claims are unsupported by any reliable scholarly source. And that's really hard to find. What have the professional historians been doing during all those strikes? The hoaxes or memes surrounding Gaius Appuleius Diocles are definitely worth an article. We must tell the world the lies we are told and the truth we must hold! Aarfrunzindin (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wagner Group rebellion § "Failed rebellion". IanDBeacon (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no. Not for every edit. It would be boring and useless. When I want to know what have changed, I always check other Wikipedians' edits and the difference with preceding revisions. Edit summaries are far from NPOV primary sources about what editors have been doing. Aarfrunzindin (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Russo–Ukrainian war, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. I find your statement about autistic editors on your userpage to be deeply inappropriate, bordering on hate speech, and I request you remove it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider removing the rude parts of this section too. WP:CIVIL. People don't want to collaborate with someone who is saying these types of things about their fellow editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No harm intended. Aarfrunzindin (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You softened one of the two diffs I mentioned, and your edit summary changing snowflake-disrupting wording after has fallen victim to annoying janitorial stalking and bullying was rude too. You appear to have changed the minimum needed to not risk a block at ANI. That's your choice I suppose, but I am disappointed that you have not embraced the spirit of WP:CIVIL more. Regards. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]