User talk:Pddalmeida

Problems with upload of File:Benfica.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Benfica.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Estádio José Alvalade, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sporting Clube de Portugal (Logo).svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sporting Clube de Portugal (Logo).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Lisbon page

The paragraph you keep wanting to reinstate has no merit for inclusion in the article. Even if true, we do not merge different sports under a sports club together, which is what you've done. Sporting's football team have 1 european trophy out of the 25 you claim the sports club won, so the part has nothing to do with their football achievements or the football club. Furthermore, the source you used is in Portuguese, and typically on an English wikipedia we try to use English sources. I am skeptical of the validity of it but checking it doesnt change the fact that the phrasing doesnt belong on that page. If you are still in such opposition to its exclusion, perhaps we should take it to wikiproject football, and get a consensus there. Davefelmer (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Sporting Clube de Portugal.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Sporting Clube de Portugal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pddalmeida. 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 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.

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]

February 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Sporting CP. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sporting CP. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Pddalmeida reported by User:SLBedit (Result: ). Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sporting_CP, you may be blocked from editing. Kingerikthesecond (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sporting CP, you may be blocked from editing. Kingerikthesecond (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sporting CP, you may be blocked from editing. Kingerikthesecond (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Sporting CP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Pddalmeida reported by User:SLBedit (Result: ). Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta be kidding--your block is over, and you go right back to it, to this weird matter of a banner--and the removal of sourced content. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source. Next block is likely indefinite, since you are quickly turning into a net negative. (User:MSGJ, any thoughts?) Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and MSGJ: Pddalmeida is again removing information that got him/her blocked twice in the past. SLBedit (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Sporting CP) for a period of 1 year for ongoing disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reason

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).

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

Request reason:

I removed that information about the alleged alliance between Sporting CP and FC Porto because, since the election of the actual President of Sporting CP on September 2018, it clearly ceased to exist and in fact the relationship between the presidents of both clubs have been extremely contentious. This fact was even accepted by username SLBedit when he reverted my edit on 18 December 2022, stating the following: “That doesn't change the past, and the text never said the alliance was ongoing.” My contributions along the years, never intended to disrupt the page in question but rather to make it more factual and accurate. Regards.

Decline reason:

This does not describe what you did incorrectly or how your future edits would be significantly different. I think a block on a single article out of literally millions is not much of a concern. You are free to edit other articles so long as you do so constructively. Yamla (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2023 (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.

Unblock reason

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to thank the administrator Yamla for reviewing my unblock reason even if the outcome wasn’t the one that I expected. The page Sporting CP is dear to me since it is my club and I always wanted the page to be as accurate as possible without any kind of bias whatsoever, just the facts. I am not very experienced in Wikipedia and although I have received a few blocks in the past, I have never went deep on what was being said of me, especially by username SLBedit. Today I was reading some comments in Sporting CP talk page and I was completely shocked by some references and even discovered that many other users agreed with my contributions in the past but they were described by SLBedit as being created by me under the assumption that I created new identities or usernames. I simply cannot believe that there are people so insidious that think that other people act like them. Also this username that goes by the name of SLBedit, which is the acronym of Sport Lisboa e Benfica, the biggest rival of Sporting CP, followed by the word edit in front, seems by many accounts, not just by mine, to have an agenda against Sporting CP. Finally I would like to say that all the contributions that were deemed disrupted by this person, including topics regarding the number of ‘sócios’ of the club, the events regarding the Sporting vs Benfica rivalry, among so many others, were then accepted throughout the years because at the end of the day, the truth and people that contribute in good faith to this incredibly useful tool which is Wikipedia, will prevail over hate and disinformation. Although I wrote this text for my own peace of mind, because I wanted to set the facts straight, I also wanted to give you all the facts and context of what has been happening along these past years, so that you can make a decision regarding my blocking, fully aware of the truth. Best regards. Pddalmeida (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Much like your first request, this doesn't really provide a reason to remove the partial block. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2023 (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.

Unblock reason

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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for reviewing my unblock request even though the outcome wasn’t the one I was hoping for. This will be my last request. I stand by everything that I described in my last two unblock requests. I just wanted to add the fact, and you can check this statement, that every contribution I made to Sporting CP page was completely based on facts and never based on my opinion or personal bias. Regards. Pddalmeida (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request completely misses its target. You are blocked for disruptive editing. I have no idea what the situation between those two football teams is, but I do see you making edits with false edit summaries (as MJL points out below), which is disruptive regardless of whether or not you are correct. Until you address that behaviour, nobody is going to be willing to consider unblocking you. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:52, 20 July 2023 (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.

You wrote in your edit summary here that you Added crests. In reality, you did that *and* removed the rivalry/alliance sentence that you've tried to remove many times over. Just let it go. You are going to need to accept the fact that the sentence about FC Porto is just going to be there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to just edit somewhere else (not Portuguese football related!) where you are more likely to be dispassionate (which you have not been able to display so far despite your insistence otherwise). I'd argue you are too overly concerned with the outcome that you haven't been able to figure out the process. The option to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia is still available to you, and you should really consider taking it. Then, once you understand how to collaboratively and productively edit here, you might be able to return one day and tackle re-writing that sentence. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]