User talk:Histoveritas

Histoveritas, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Histoveritas! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Order of Saint Isabel has been reverted.
Your edit here to Order of Saint Isabel was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/loule.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not use any other account nor did I attempt to do so, except my own which IP address I can apply. This is also strange since I have reported socketpuppetry of a user who used multiple accounts in edits, yet I have been charged for using my own. Histoveritas (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please be specific as to the exact relationship between you and BlueGreenDay. For example, maybe it is your sibling? A friend? Yamla (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2021 (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.

Ways to improve Pedro José Folque de Bragança

Hello, Histoveritas,

Thank you for creating Pedro José Folque de Bragança.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article does not establish notability and relies on a single source. More sources are needed.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pedro José Folque de Mendoça

The article Pedro José Folque de Mendoça has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All but one of the footnotes point to https://www.notiziarioaraldico.info/2017111412598/on-line-studio-sulla-real-casa-di-portogallo/, which is a self-published blog that itself cites wikipedia and other wikis and self-published forums and blogs for all of its claims.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pedro José Folque de Mendoça for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pedro José Folque de Mendoça is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro José Folque de Mendoça until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DrKay (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]