Jump to content

User talk:Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Systemless (December 13)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's ok @KylieTastic Thank you. It was actually an experiment. I am still new on this, I will work on that in the future. I know why it was declined. thank you very much Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bludegon

[edit]

You really need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven Thank you, however, I am not sure why you sent me this. I am not forcing my point of view by the contrary, I detected that there is a point of view by a few. Why are you sending me this? Need to know the objective of this expression in my own page. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be replying to almost every post, often making the same points over and over again. As to RFC, read wp:RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven because the answers are also not correct and not impartial. bludgeon is a serious accusation. So I would remove the word "really" at least. If you want my collaboration, I am here to help.
I explain very clearly that the point was not in consensus and I am not the only one. I appreciate you be more open minded and help others to contribute instead of expecting them to be just wrong.
There was statements by the correspondents colleagues that are actually dangerous in terms of thinking. And contrary of it was accused, I didn't get emotional, but I can say, it seems that our colleagues felt emotional by saying "bunch of countries" when defining UN.
And finally, to be clear, because I don't expect this to be a spin, I didn't reply to every post. That was my thread that I started, and I hope you can understand that before writing in my own talk declaring "(...) replying to almost every post, often making the same points over and over (...)" it shows exactly a kind of pressure that is not gentle.
Hope you can understand my critic with respect, I have no intentions to create a bad environment here, you are welcome to help me do things better and i appreciate the links. Thank you. Just don't allocate statements like this which are not appropriate and don't show respect. Start by understanding "how this happens" and work consensus to achieve.
Science requires reviews and re-talks. Still learning how this works. Help me to do this better but avoid silly accusations.
Thank you for understanding, I hope we can grow here something. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have exhibited multiple signs of disruptive editing in Talk:Taiwan, namely the below:

  1. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability
  2. Does not engage in consensus building
  3. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors

Please stop ignoring the existing RfC consensus and reliable sources cited by other editors. You are free to move on to other topics if you aren't able to understand or productively comment on this specific topic. Butterdiplomat (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, but your way of justifying sounds worst like ostracism. Remsemve said to open a RfC in which I will. I appreciate you can be more constructive and not so narrow minded and use terms as “just a bunch of countries” while relying on newspapers comments. I will need time to open a rfc and I hope you can be far more open instead of just minimize other peoples opinion and accuse them of being unwilling to satisfy wiki verifiable. Science and history need continuous improvement and points of view. You have shown lack knowledge of logic and perspective so i hope you can reflect on your accusation. instead of helping me, you prefer to ban or acuse which is dangerous and wrong. this is a common pattern for those that only want to see one side of history and science and not willing to compromise more, and if yiu qct like this hear means you do the same in other places. i would like to point that if it wasn't for disruption, all science, political science and history would not evolve and it's a very thin line to understand if that disruption is or not beneficiary. for a simple reason: if you don't understand it might be because you simply dont know and act by defense.
please take my words with kindness as i prefer to have you in a constructive path rather than a hater! and thanks for tour message nevertheless, it also shows afterall some concerns.
help instead to improve a good discussion on the rfc. lets learn from this. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More and more, you display signs of clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. I would suggest respecting prior consensus and raising issue with valid concerns, instead of simply voicing your personal opinions, when it comes to editing. Butterdiplomat (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. @Butterdiplomat I will mention again. I respect your opinion as you should respect mine. I already said I will raise the RFC. It’s actually very impertinent from you to be so offensive against me. You show hate by expressing that I am not here with good purposes. I advice you to reflect on your actions since it’s you that are writing in my page with motives of “simply invalidate my contribution by saying that I don’t respect prior editing”. I am going to say one more time as I don’t like bullies. I respect your opinion and prior, just also understand that your assumption is wrong and invalid in which I demonstrate by simple logic. I even said things that you didn’t even read or understand. Now, I will try to be as clear as possible in my RfC and I advise you to reflect on your actions and thinking and not be offensive as I am not a child, or more, just someone you can beat up. If you are frustrated by not have any valid arguments for your narrow point of view, and you can’t accept your dunning-Kruger síndrome, it’s not my problem. I ask prior for your help and instead you just prefer to beat me more because you want it. You have 2 ways, help me get consensus together or stop harassing me here. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some basics info for you before you start anything Country#Statehood Moxy- 14:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Moxy this was very nice from you. It makes my point more challenging. I will read it carefully before making any rfc. Thank you for the positive contribution. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Systemless

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Systemless, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Systemless

[edit]

Hello, Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Systemless".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro_Manuel_da_Silva_Faria&oldid=1255798490"