User talk:Young Brujah

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alesana, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alesana is very well credited as an emo band in several publications. Do not remove verified content GunMetal Angel 19:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frammis4242

Hi. I noticed that you've recently reverted some of Frammis4242 (talk · contribs)'s edits. I've started a discussion about his behavior at WP:ANI#User:Frammis4242. You are welcome to comment there if you wish. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stronda

I've declined your speedy request as it's not a band, it's a genre of music. If you really feel it should go, you'll have to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to message posted on my Talk Page

In answer to your request.

Yes I will try to make sure my edits are finalized before I save and I will use the "show preview" button more. No problem and thanks for reviewing the article.

Sluffs (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I saw you added an unsourced genre to an article which was added by an IP genre warrior. The genre metalcore was unsourced and also the genres were sources. Read the body as it says in sources that the album abandons the metalcore style for a thrash metal style. Your edit was considered disruptive. See WP:GWAR

Dalescohen (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Vélez Rodríguez

Please either keep or remove what's being disputed before reinserting a single partisan/biased source. I have absolutely nothing against Marxists/Antifa activists but once you make contentious/unsourced/false accusations against an anti-Marxism person then we have problem. I opened a RfC so hopefully fellow editors will comment and help to reach a consensus. 49.180.156.49 (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, you clearly have something against leftists on Wikipedia or else you wouldn't bring this up in all of your arguments, because it simply doesn't matter. You keep removing a reliable source just because you don't agree with it, and that one explicitly describes him as far-right. My views on this subject doesn't matter, our contributions must stick to what a realiable source says. Hope we can reach consensus on the talk page. Greetings Young Brujah (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2019 (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) 00:13, 19 November 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. Thank you. 2A05:4F46:70:DC00:18F0:C18C:C07E:D472 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1964?

? Grêmio de Esportes Maringá campeão em 1964? time nem existia em 1964 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim maud (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Communist Party edit

Hello, I've noticed you deleted my edit. I think your claim of "unreliable sources" is unfair. After all, I specified that the PCB-RR *alleges* the reasons for the expulsions and the schism that I was writing down. As for using their own words, well, very few outside of the brazilian communist world are talking about this, and using a primary source with detailed descriptions of the PCB behaviors the PCB-RR was chastising was the only recourse (but should it be, if we were to stop to ponder the matter? The pages of far bigger political parties, for example, use their statutes as primary sources without batting an eye). All other sources on the PCB/PCB-RR dispute that I found are "partisan" (i.e. other communists, friendly or adversarial) and not detailed enough. Unfortunately, news websites have only written about the expulsions, so far, but hey, if you know better Brazilian websites for such niche topics, I'd love to know their names so I can source from there.Leegend99 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Leegend99! If very few outside of the brazilian communist world are talking about it, then maybe it's just not that relevant. PCB is one of the oldest parties in Brazil and it has gone throught several internal disputes. If this one turns out to be relevant in the future, like the one in 65 which gave rise to the Communist Party of Brazil, then certainly there will be more reliable sources. Young Brujah (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will see if the "extraordinary congress" of the PCB-RR produces a new party like the '65 split did. Leegend99 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]