User talk:GumballNine1Nine

Hello, GumballNine1Nine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 🌊 oceanloop 03:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constitution of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estado Novo. 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) 07:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Why did you edit the Luxembourg pages? (I'm just curious) Dynamismcool (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not undo your edit BTW. Dynamismcool (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've left a summary of those edits, and as I've explained there, those previous renderings are not according to what is officialy mandated there: https://data.legilux.public.lu/filestore/eli/etat/leg/recueil/emblemes_nationaux/20180901/fr/pdf/eli-etat-leg-recueil-emblemes_nationaux-20180901-fr-pdf.pdf

In fact, now that you raised this point, I just want to point out that the prior renderings follow a design pattern that it's very common here at wikipedia (when it comes to heraldry) and doesn't take into account the actual laws of a given country, and given the high profile nature of this type of media (because they are usually placed at the very top of a country's page), I see this as highly harmful and as you can see in Luxembourg's case the actual official coat of arms is quite different. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the link and it really IS that way. Sorry for editing the coat of arms. I just didn't know about this until now.😅 Dynamismcool (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Glad I could help! (I actually had to dig quite a bit on Commons to find out that those are the correct renderings, so it's completly understandable). I wish you all the best! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Is that the same with the Netherlands too? I digged a little and found these links: File:Wapen van Nederland klein.svg; File:Koninklijk wapen van het koninkrijk der Nederlanden.svg; File:Rijkswapen der Nederlanden.svg. Should I restore them on the Netherlands page? Dynamismcool (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't, since I couldn't find any official source that backs them up unlike the Luxembourg's case, as far as I can see there, those files are original work by a user which are based on File:Koninklijk Wapen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1907).jpg, but that particular image is not in any official document unlike, again, the Luxembourg's case. I appreaciate your help in this matter, and I'll point out some cases here on wikipedia that for some reason they decide to keep the wrong rendering of the coat of arms (for reasons that I don't know) here's the pages:

Ceuta the flag and coat of arms in this one is totally wrong, the correct files should be File:Flag of Ceuta without coa.svg and File:EscudoCeuta.svg there's a user (I don't remember their username), who last time refused to accept those changes in these articles despite official sources saying otherwise: https://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/la-institucion/emblemas-institucionales; https://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/images/documentos/ManualCorporativo/ManualEscudoCeuta.pdf)

The rest of the spanish regions follow the same pattern: this wikipedia standard of renderings, when it comes to heraldry, seems to take precedence over official sources, misinforming the readers, I see this as a big issue. Here's the other spanish regions with a wrong rendering of their coats of arms: Andalusia, should be File:Escudo de Andalucía (oficial).svg per https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/presidencia/28f/memoria-autonomica/escudo-de-andalucia/ and also https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/1983/BOE-A-1983-4469-consolidado.pdf, the flag should be File:Bandera de Andalucia.svg per https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/organismos/transparencia/informacion-institucional-organizativa/simbolos.html; Aragon both their flag and coat of arms are wrong the correct ones should be: File:Escudo Comunidad Autonoma de Aragón - Oficial.svg per https://www.aragon.es/documents/20127/94294834/1.2.1.+Comunidad+Autonoma.+Presidencia+e+identificador+principal.+La+Logomarca.pdf/1c26c4d6-edee-54ca-f447-94bdc7017b6f?t=1678791133387, and the flag should be File:Flag of Catalonia.svg (the title is wrong btw, per article 3 of the Statute of Autonomy - https://www.boa.aragon.es/pdf/ESTATUTOAUTONOMIA.pdf: "The flag of Aragon is the traditional one made up of 4 red stripes over a yellow background" - no mention of having the coat of arms on the flag whatsoever), yet wiki editors ignored this when reverted a past version of the Aragon article. There's plenty of instances of Spanish autonomous communities that have a wrong rendering of the flag and/or coat of arms, you have to dig up on commons to find a correct rendering but that's only the case if they have citations like the ones I provided as examples (official sources from the government only), unlike the Netherlands case. But again, I deeply appreciate your attention on this specific topic. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Why has no one edited all you just said yet? Dynamismcool (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They already had done that, but an edit war began because of that, you really have to look at those page's past edits to see what happened, but essentially, no one have bothered to correct those mistakes since then GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

So it was basically an edit war over the right information? Dynamismcool (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

yes GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone changed the coat of arms on the "Coat of arms of Luxembourg" page 2 days ago to the ones before you edited it. Dynamismcool (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the edit in Coat of arms of Luxembourg. But ever since you edited it, I noticed something off. If you squint your eyes, you will see that there are white or transparent gaps. This isn't normal. Dynamiscool (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If you wish, you can upload on Wikimedia Commons, that rendering of the coat of arms with whatever modifications you deem necessary. Thank you.GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Teatro Nacional de São Carlos, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name does not follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See WP:EN, Teatro Nacional de São Carlos appears to be used in English sources. The "São Carlos" portion should not have been translated, at least Paris1127 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, it was a mistake and won't happen again.GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

1. We caution you against editing the Ceuta document. Reverting to an older version without prior discussion is a violation of the rules and constitutes vandalism. Therefore, please do not edit.

Thank you. (see WP:OL, WP:SEAOFBLUE: We caution you against editing the Ceuta document. Reverting to an older version without prior discussion is a violation of the rules and constitutes vandalism. Therefore, please do not edit.) --Azredcon4 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please add Palau to the map (in red) per DePaiva family murders? If you need specifics ping me. CoryGlee 22:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks for bringing this up. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Done! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

...for your addition on Hello, World. A suggestion, maybe you'd like to add Hello, World to sodium layer with a good summarizing caption. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a great idea! I hope that you like it! Thanks! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Btw all the credit goes to Hank Green for enlightening me about this topic GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Portugal is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Portugal has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For you excellent work on getting Portugal – a vital, and frankly massive, article to GA! As a resident of Portugal it caught my eye especially. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 13:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks GearsDatapacks. Soon, I'll nominate Portugal to FA, stay tuned! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

GearsDatapacks, Portugal is now a featured article candidate! Make sure to leave comments. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent! I can try to help review, although I've never taken part in FAC before. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 08:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi GumballNine1Nine, could you quote which sentence exactly from WP:NOT3RR you are referring to? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is: "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users." also "Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring: Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring." (the specific content I've reverted is partly or wholly related to the edit warring preformed by the user, I won't be using the same reason if I revert further edits previously performed by them). If you have any further questions please feel free to ask. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There has been no violation of a block or ban, and the edits were also not edits of a banned or blocked user. Reverting contributions solely because the user has been blocked after making the edits is walking on thin ice. It may be justified by the edit warring policy, but the section you've linked to doesn't contain language justifying this argument. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've intreperted those sentences wrong, I'll revert the edits. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Please don't let this stop you from continuing to bring the article towards the Featured Article nomination, where it will be reviewed again anyway and you'll have to deal with Wareno's objections anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:) To answer your removed question anyway, it's complicated. You've probably stumbled upon the "just outside the 24-hour period" clarification at WP:3RR. I personally generally don't count reverts and hours. When there's an edit war, there's been an edit war. To my understanding, the three-revert rule was introduced as a way to silence "but I didn't edit war" arguments with something clear and definitive, but it neither works the other way around (two reverts can still be edit warring), nor exactly as simple as it sounds (fourth revert just outside of 24 hours is still a violation etc).

In an ideal world, you'd find an agreement with Wareno on the article's talk page. Disputed content doesn't work well for a featured article, I think. But sometimes it's impossible to find an agreement and a third opinion or an RfC is needed. Which is a time-intensive process hopefully leading to a conclusion after a month. So perhaps finding an agreement is more attractive even if difficult.

Thanks for self-reverting. It wasn't a clear enough policy violation for me personally to block, but it would have felt wrong if your post-block reverts had stayed. And in the end, months later from now, it shouldn't matter what state the article was in before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I agree that disputed content doesn't work well for a featured article. This whole situation was really unfortunate because I believe the article is very close to being ready for FAC. I will continue working on other areas of the article, then review what the user did elsewhere in the article outside of the infobox and, before nominating it, seek the reviewers opinions at peer review regarding the infobox. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Portugal. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was the rush since I was hoping to have the article ready for FAC within the next couple of hours, I'll be more careful in the meantime. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello GumballNine1Nine Im currently the IP User working on the Semi Official Flag of Macau Portugal I would like to ask where is the local consensus to use the Portuguese flag for the Poruguese Macau page I'm having a hard time finding it. I would also like to encourage you to leave your options on the talk page for this topic thank you and hope to hear from you soon :)

Talk Page Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Portuguese_Macau#h-Use_the_Semi_Official_Flag_for_the_page-20260605235300

~2026-35823-93 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your try to enhance Portugal article. However, there is a consensus that advanced editors should edit articles systematically and use sandbox. About 1500 edits of Portugal article by you over last 2 months is too much amount and should be done in groups. Thank you for follow of such practice in the future. ThecentreCZ (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for checking my work. When you said that 1500 edits of Portugal article by you over last 2 months is too much amount and should be done in groups, is that based on any specific guideline limiting the number of edits per article? If not, I'd like to note that this is a general overview article. Comprehensive revisions like this naturally result in a higher edit count than more narrowly focused articles. In fact, given that this type of article reached FAC status, 1,500 edits seems like a reasonable amount.

On an unrelated note, the Portugal flag file doesn't use the "primary flag name format". GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologise for taking a harder line on your FAC (I see it's been archived), I hope you haven't found this discouraging. You'll be able to renominate in two weeks (drawing on the extant supports), which should give you a comfortable window to address the issues raised. Best of luck with the article-- I'm sure if you need a hand, someone at Wikiproject Portugal would be keen to help. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and for the time and effort you put into your review. I really appreciate your suggestions from the last FAC nomination, and please don't apologize, I see every review on FAC as positive because they highlight issues in the article that I now have the opportunity to address. I take constructive feedback seriously, and I'm confident that in two weeks this will be the final nomination before the article becomes a FA. As with the last nomination, I welcome any future reviews. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Shoud a new topic be opened at the Portugal talk page to discuss improvements? Tuesp1985 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. The only reason the nomination was archived was due to source and text integrity issues. Given the several positive reviews of the article's content on FAC, I prefer to handle the remaining work myself. If you'd like, you can do a source spot check before I renominate the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I think the sources are just fine, (taking a look at other FAC pages, I'm of the opinion that the Portugal page sources are much more detailed), and not sure what to look for exactly, as like I said, for me, they are very thorough. My point was more about text and image improvements, just as I already had proposed in discussions. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tuesp1985: I meant a source spot-check like what I did here. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I know that, my position is that they, regardless of the spot checking and compared with other pages, are already very much thorough. Anyway, the image you posted in the religion content is not very fitting, in my view. Maybe putting the image of an important historical church, like the Batalha monastery, File:“Batalha” — Mosteiro de Santa Maria da Vitoria (54201341215).jpg. Example the Germany religion content image. Simpler image captions, without refs and so on, are preferable. What do you think? Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The point of that image is to show that, despite the high percentage of Catholics in Portugal, the majority are non-practicing. The half-empty church during a service presided over by the Patriarch of Lisbon himself helps portray that fact, which adds relevance to the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I get that, but that's a situation common in most countries, not just in Portugal. My opinion is that it can be explained in the text, adding also more info that was on the pie chart, and the image should be of a historic church, with a simple caption, as many who visit the page probably want an example of religious architecture of the country. Tuesp1985 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The pie chart was removed because of WP:COUNTRYCHARTS, as mentioned during the FAC nomination. That's the only reason I've added another image to the article. I know that other featured country articles include a picture of a religious building in the religion section, but I personally don't think it's useful in the Demographics section to show a picture of a building, since demographics isn't about architecture. Putting that info in the caption helps keep the article's text below the 8,000-word count. In any case, in less than two weeks I'll renominate the article at FAC, where I'm sure other editors will share their opinions on the images. As I want to address the issues raised during the FAC nomination and cross this item off my to-do list, I think we can leave that image in the article for now and look into a different one if other reviewers share the same opinion. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine, but when the time comes I will propose the image change. The point is that religion in Portugal is also very much linked to monuments, which in turn are connected to the population. I think the current image, quite somber and adding little besides the fact that it's half-empty, is not appropriate, and that an image showcasing the country's religious heritage would be more relevant. But that's a topic for later. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joko2468: I was wondering if you’d be interested in picking up the article again now that I’ve renominated it? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm afraid I don't have the time presently. There are also still 20, 30, and 40-page citations, which would make the sourcing review pretty miserable. The most egregious of these appears to be ref 450 which is cited to 185 pages. Best of luck with the nomination though! Joko2468 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

no problem, I replaced that egregious source with a different one. @Tuesp1985: Since you seem at least familiar with this topic, would you be willing to do a sourcing review similar to the one made by Joko2468 during the last nomination, like a spot check of 15% of the total citations? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I can review them. No problem. Cheers! Tuesp1985 (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi. In this edit to Portugal you use {{sfnp|Lopes|2016|pp=221-234}}. Unfortunately no such work "Lopes 2016" is listed in the article. This means that nobody can verify the reference, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

	Der Enzyklopädistenorden
	Für die immens hohe Qualität, Quantität und Sorgfalt der Arbeit, die dieser Benutzer ohne Mangel an Anerkennung zur Wikipedia-Seite für die Portugiesische Republik beigetragen hat. For the immensely high quality, quantity, and diligence of work contributed by this user to the Wikipedia page for the Portuguese Republic, without want of recognition. Chat-qui-Aboie (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind recognition. The Portugal article has been a long, steady effort, and it's good to know the work has been noticed! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your work on the Portugal article has been outstanding. Was surprised at the FA review outcome.....most scrutinized country article review I have ever seen. Moxy🍁 17:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind recognition. I can’t say I enjoyed having my first FA nomination archived, but I welcome that level of scrutiny. I’ve already spotted quite a few inaccuracies since then, and seeing the level of interest from the reviewers was rewarding in itself. On a side note, it’s a coincidence that you gave me the award just as I was thinking of asking you specifically whether you might have the time and interest to do a brief spot check on the article before I renominate it. I would really appreciate your insights given your expertise on Wikipedia. Thanks again for the award! GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Lets ping @Nikkimaria:.....as she is both an FA and country article expert to take a look. Moxy🍁 23:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The article isn’t quite ready to come out of the oven yet. I hope I can finish it within a week, and hopefully Nikkimaria will agree to help with a very shallow spot check just to make sure it’s ready. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)