Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Prova-nome, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains(talk) 01:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The three-revert rule

Many people know that if someone reverts an article more than three times in 24 hours (3RR), they may be blocked to prevent edit warring. But did you know that:

  • Although reverts on different articles do not count towards the limit, different reverts on the same article do count. So if you revert Paragraph A twice and Paragraph B twice in 24 hours, you have made four reverts and may be blocked.
  • If you revert three times, wait for 24 hours and start reverting again, you may be blocked for 'gaming' the rule. The three-revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement.
  • Although you cannot be blocked for repeatedly reverting vandalism, many Wikipedians mistake edits for vandalism when they are not. For example, edits that do not respect the neutral point of view policy are not vandalism.

The easiest way to avoid being blocked for reverting is to revert as little as possible and discuss with your fellow editors instead. Some editors limit themselves to one or no reverts a day. Select categories on Wikipedia are limited to 1RR (one revert rule). Those articles will have an edit notice to apprise you of their special status. For 1RR you may only revert one edit in the entire category per 24-hours.

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

edit
 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) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

December 2019

edit
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply