Hi SirPortuga! 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 Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make 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. regarding The Ottoman-Portuguese War wikitigresito (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Ottoman-Portuguese War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scr★pIron^IV 16:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I place my opinions on the talk page of the article. I would look to see what other editors feel about the changes. I do not think there is a consensus that Portugal was the first world power. Where does that leave Macedonia, Rome, China, etc

Boas, pelo teu username presumo que sejas português, pelo que falarei em português também para ser mais prático.

Queria só avisar aqui que alguns dos edits que fizeste à pagina inglesa dedicada à Batalha de Diu, na qual eu também contribui, podem não estar de acordo com o estilo da Wikipédia (uso de bold e links por ex.), e poderão vir a ser revertidos a seu tempo. Para mais, a ideia de que o Império Otomano participou na batalha está errada, pelo que não se deverá considerar um conflito luso-turco.

If actually you don't speak Portuguese, let me know and I will write in English instead. Regards, Crenelator (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have come to answer your reply in my talk page. If you read the source I used in the article, Chaul e Diu: O Domínio do Índico, the only work in existance dedicated exclusively to analysing the Battle of Diu in detail, you will realize why it's wrong to think the Ottomans were present at Diu, like I've explained in the talk page. There is a lot of confusion in English sources. Regards. Crenelator (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Ottoman-Portuguese War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Murat Reis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ottoman-Portuguese War 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/Ottoman-Portuguese War until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing in good faith so far, but sockpuppetry will achieve you nothing but editing restrictions, especially when it's an attempt to change the outcome of an AfD discussion. Please consider addressing the issues that were brought up by other editors, including myself. Some of the article's content can still be saved. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rest easy, I have different people using the same network. But if you think it would be better to delete them, let me know.

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sir Thiago. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Bbb23: I totally understand why you blocked this account, but before you blocked it I corrected the problem by erasing the comments. I was warned by the user above and as you can see, I took the advice and I corrected the problem. Now, I think that it was a drastic measure to block the account, since I was willing to fix the problem and follow the warning given by the user above. Sir Thiago (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2018 (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.

Your response to the other editor was unclear. Are you admitting those two accounts were operated by you?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: By the same device and by my request, yes, but not by me. But since it was my network and device, it can be directed to me, I understand that. Sir Thiago (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked two other people to use your computer to create accounts to edit the AfD? I don't believe you. Even if it were true, it demonstrates extraordinarily poor judgment and is a violation of meat puppetry. I will not unblock you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Wheter you believe it or not, it's not the case here. But again, It was the first time this issue happened and I totally understand your point and concern, since it is WP police to prevent those things to happen. I was advised and immediatelly corrected it and I take responsability for not letting that happen again. I think that should be enough.

No, by gum, it isn't enough. You colluded with two other people to affect a deletion discussion? Let that sink in for a moment. Two moments. You have now lowered your credibility to zero. There is no way you can reasonably expect the community to trust you. Never, ever. Letting it happen? Like these people shoved you away from the computer, created accounts and !voted in an AfD, but you just were not light enough on your feet to stop it? Well, we can make sure it never happens again. Problem solved.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I confess I'm a criminal and I should be on WP jail for my devious actions forever, but is there any WP lawyer to defend me here? As for beeing shoved away from my computer...how do you know that really happened? People in my house are really violent, you would be surprised. So...I guess there's nothing more I can do but wait for a merciful admin, to release me from my sins, because I don't know how to live without Wikipedia. Or perhaps...I could take other easier steps as well...

I've revoked your access to this page because of your veiled threat. You may contact WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]