Please leave your messages here. Thank you.

Hello, if you have carefully read all of my contributions on the talk pages, then you will have noticed that my initial comments emphasize the mechanical concerns of articles, call attention to useless comments, and occasionally responsed to hypersensitive people who take critiques too personally; your characterization is distorted. Since you self-identify as an expert, then I will take the time to explain my misgivings, such as: (1) The etymology of "creole." It is derived from the Spanish and Portuguese "criado," or (literally "raised"), indicating a dependent of an affluent household (socially considered "minors"), suggesting the lower social status of those born in the Americas, because it was argued that the American climates negatively affected the physical and intellectual condition of those born there (yes it sounds irrational). The term "creole" applied to ALL American-born non-natives, including Africans until the nineteenth century, so the European-creole elision is retroactive essentialism. (2) Under "Recognition and renaissance," what are the sources of your assertion? (3) Same question for the first paragraph of the section "Substrate and superstrate"---for those of us who are unfamiliar with these terms (such as I), it would be helpful to more clearly explain these terms, and since it ISN'T common knowledge, then citations are needed. (4) The first paragraph of the section "Shared features" is inconsistent in its citations; the first sentence contains weasel words and needs to be substantiated. (5) The section "Gradualist and developmental hypotheses" is also inconsistent in its citations.

I stand by my tag requesting more verification and sources, and will re-insert it. The citations that are given are fine, but again, since you self-identify as an expert, I would suggest that you keep in mind the (inexpert) general audience that would appreciate more careful citations and brief, cogent definitions of the specialized vocabulary. In the future, I will enter suggestions in the talk page before I insert tags. Kemet 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My reply here. Novalis69 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you source the claim that most linguistics accept the inclusion of Japanese and Korean. To the best of my knowledge, most linguists reject it, not accept it. JdeJ 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at just any textbook right now on the market and you will see that the Altaic hypothesis has become totally uncontroversal. Novalisla69 19:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that your attempt at administration against User:Kemet is in poor form. It is much more appropriate (and friendlier by the way) to address editors on their behavior to help them correct it themselves. Part of WP:AGF is assuming that editors acting improperly are doing so out of ignorance rather than willful malice. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been at this since November 2004 and I don't see any signs of him changing his ways or correcting anything. On the contrary, he just reverted without commenting or explaining my change on the Charles Hamilton Houston article where I had restored this man's ethnicity, based on fact and prior editorial consensus, back to African American. He cannot decide just on his own, without any consensus on this matter, to change all African American to Americans.

I stand by my request for sanction. Novalis69 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about his behavior contradicts what I just said? If you believe that his behavior is inappropriate then go on his talk page and say so, even point to the proper guideline and policy pages. Then you give him a chance to correct his behavior. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did. Didn't I accommodate him, even helped him reformulating his things? If I hadn't discovered what he has been doing all over the place for the last 2 1/2 years, I would have let it go at that. Did you read his reply on the incidents page? He has been a bad boy in the past, long time ago, now he has changed. He is going to be good. They all say that. People like that never change, they are like alcoholics, they can't stop doing this. Anyway, it's too late now.

You might also want to look at Tenisland's brief droppping by.

Hi,

I was just reading the "creole language" page and saw that you were involved in correcting and adding a lot of information to the page back in 2007. I left a question in the talk page, but I wanted to make sure that it came to your attention. I recently got my BA in Linguistics, and everything I ever read or heard showed a distinction between "Language," "creole," and "pidgin." While this might just seem like a small terminology issue, it seems like naming the article "creole language" is denying this linguistic distinction. But maybe I'm just misremembering things. In any case, I would like to direct your attention to the talk page of Creole language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantiston (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

A tag has been placed on Dola Ben-Yehuda Wittmann requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hola compadre, I had just written the first line of this article and wanted to see what it looked like. Best, Novalis69 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Novalis69. 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]

Are this account and Eklir WP:SOCKs? Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Novalis69 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ). Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eklir. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Novalis69, as that seemed to be the older account. The reports need to be combined. Donald Albury 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]