User talk:Dornicke

No worries about creating the talk page. Normally, discussion pages of articles would remain red links until editors bring forward some issues about these pages. (You might start the talk page simply by editing it and save the page, really!) About editors who could be interested in arts or museum, perhaps you might post your questions at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts if you need help from users who are knowledgeable about art-related topics. If this project is inactive, you might ask some editors in the list of participants directly, or you might also request help from one of its sub project (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture). You're doing very well in expanding and improving São Paulo Museum of Art. Thanks for your contributions, :) Peacent 10:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dornicke (talk), I think for now the best idea is to use Museum of Contemporary Art, University of São Paulo, although the original Portuguese name is ok too. I think the translated English version is fine, and will be more easily grasped here. I hope this helps. Modernist (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mess, my answer is here Aloxe (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've just seen the Museu Nacional de Belas Artes article and want to congratulate you for the work you did to showcase Brazilian heritage in Wiki-en by expanding it. In January 2007, in another life (as User:Fsouza), I created it as a small draft, and it's great to see that someone turned it into a wonderful article. I rarely come back to Wiki-en to see "my" old articles, and today I had this nice surprise. Best, --Fulviusbsas (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dornicke; I'm dropping you this note because you've used

]

3 Revert Rule reminder

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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; 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.--MONGO 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dornicke reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dornicke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"The warning in my page reads: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. / You are reverting criticism related to whitewashing in the article in the talk page. Not a single valid reason for censoring it has been provided. The project rules do not support this kind of censorship. It's bad enough that a group of editors believe to the the owners of the article and persistently revert any change in the text. But now you want to CENSOR valid criticism towards the article in the talk page itself? That's more than a very bad taste joke. It's vandalism. Talk about "ideological motivation"... As for "The editor's work seems to have a singular ideological motivation", just look for my contributions, in this project, and also in the Portuguese (including the featured articles I wrote, almost all of them about art), the French, the Italian, and the Spanish wikipedias. And also for the 6,000 images I've uploaded/donated to Wikimedia Commons. The first reversion by Mongo didn't even include a reason. That's because he simply didn't know how to justify such an absurd action as deleting a discussion simply because he didn't like the way it was going... and it's really funny to see editors that were not even involved in the discussion running here to ask for "punishment". Why? No arguments to defend your point of view, so nobody must see the criticism in the talk page? LOL indeed!Dornicke (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I think this exchange illustrates the institutional flavor of Wikipedia. I saw the discussion on the talk page and found it typical of the Wikipedia community. This user has it right; I agree with their assertions about that unfounded sentence in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.243.106 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more --Mannydantyla (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks

. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) are not for general discussion about unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ansh666 18:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I've filed an RfE regarding your conduct here.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

As a result of the

Hello, Dornicke. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, Dornicke, bacana o trabalho sobre o Frans Post. Estamos em sintonia. Não são imagens ótimas, mas recentemente fotografei desenhos dele no Itaú Cultural. Talvez se interesse. Espero que esteja bem. --Joalpe (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dornicke. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dornicke. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dornicke. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Samsara 06:19, 29 December 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 coronavirus disease 2019 ( page-specific restrictions , when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions . 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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 29 December 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 the page-specific restrictions , when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions . 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.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can convince the community that you are able to play nice with others you are blocked. For reference to any reviewing admins this is the discussion that lead up to this: [3]. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked means blocked, editing as an IP is not allowed. You may not edit Wikipedia under any IP or username. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "I really don't care" you didn't get yet? It's English wikipedia's loss, not mine. I do not depend on you for anything. :) Dornicke (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC (talk · contribs), request a check user verification instead of blocking 3rd world users that have nothing to do with (Personal attack removed) with the lousy justification that I'm using IP. I really have no interest in editing in this project. It's literally full of everything I despise the most. But you are blocking innocent people just because you're a (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornicke (talk • contribs) 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dornicke,

This is to let you know that File:Pedro Américo - D. Pedro II na abertura da Assembléia Geral.jpg, a featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 2, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-12-02. 200th anniversary of birth If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! ―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro II, nicknamed the Magnanimous, was the second and last monarch of the Empire of Brazil, reigning for over 58 years. Pedro II inherited an empire on the verge of disintegration, but he turned Brazil into an emerging power in the international arena. The nation grew to be distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors on account of its political stability, freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth, and form of government—a functional representative parliamentary monarchy. Pedro II pushed through the abolition of slavery despite opposition from powerful political and economic interests. The Emperor established a reputation as a vigorous sponsor of learning, culture, and the sciences, and he won the respect and admiration of people such as Charles Darwin, Victor Hugo, and Friedrich Nietzsche, and was a friend to Richard Wagner, Louis Pasteur, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, among others. He was born 200 years ago today in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Painting. credit: Pedro Américo; Photographed by Imperial Museum of Brazil Recently featured: Archive More featured pictures

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file page
• create protected version (To create the protected version, replace the first line with {{subst:POTD row and save the page.)