User talk:Carlosguitar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, Carlosguitar/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Merovingian (t) (c) 13:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dragonball Wiki

• Hi there. I noticed you're fan of the Dragon Ball series, and I'm trying to recruit some fans from here to contribute to the Dragon Ball Wiki. It's in terrible shape right now with pretty much no consistency or policies, and only this week have I been able to get Angela and Sannse to create some Forums for us over there. I've got a proposed Manual of Style going over there and would like some people to contribute to that to set up some policies and start making the wiki bigger, better, and more intelligible/consistent. If you're interested, please hop on over or talk to me. Thanks for the time, whether you're interested or not. Wildyoda 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please discontinue editing the parkour wiki, Mario's jumps and movments are not parkour, neither is tomb raider's. Just as preforming a kick or a punch does not mean one practices kung-fu or karate, preforming a jump or a vault does not mean one practices parkour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigNinjaPimp (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

money

I would just like to clarify that that was NOT vandalism on the money article, simply a mistake. I hope you did not take it the wrong way. --Paaerduag 07:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

deleting portions of paaerduag user page

Um... what exactly have I been deleting? before randomly accusing users of wikipedia of destroying their own user pages, please stop to think. I don't know what I've done wrong. I haven't even edited my user page for a while now. First you accuse me of vandalism on the Money article, now you threaten to block me. If you continue to harass me in this manner, I will not put up with it and I will notify another administrator. --Paaerduag 07:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

your accusations

excuse me, who the hell do you think you are? I have not touched my talk page for several months. Don't go digging up the past. If you used your eyes for once you'd realize that that whole saga has been removed. So stop accusing me of vandalism and removing posts. How dare you. I take offense. If your harassment continues I will notify another administrator. --Paaerduag 07:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

you ignored me!

I said that these things you are only now picking up on happened SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. do you understand those words? if you must know, I was blocked at that time, and I don't want you to dredge up the past for no reason. I hope you understand the meaning of what I'm saying. the past is the past. Leave it. --Paaerduag 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

why are you bringing it up if it happened two months ago? you are accusing me of removing parts of my talk page as if it happened yesterday! why are you so confrontational and accusational? Answer me that. why are you treating me like it happened yesterday, even after the whole saga is over. get a life and leave me alone. stop digging up the past. what you have done is extremely hurtful and degrading, and I'm inclined to think that this may be an attack. --Paaerduag 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

please stop harassing me and attacking me. this is hurting and degrading and I cannot take it anymore. Please STOP! --Paaerduag 03:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you accept my suggestion as a person attack I will stop to reply in your talk page. However, if you change of idea, take a look in my diff. Carlosguitar 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User page talk

FYI it is now agreed that users can delete talk and warnings from their own talk pages per WP:TPG#User_talk_pages. This didn't used to be the case. Tyrenius 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I only removed what I had added. Nothing original was changed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.130.60 (talk)

Please refrain From Randomly removing hackthissite edits

Please, Unless you are as intimately involved with the subject, please keep your "factual error" spam to yourself. Not only is it extremely annoying, it is also very harmful to wikipedia.

Brazil Collaboration

Hello! You showed support for Brazil Collaboration. This time is the Brazil Collaboration. Hope you can help. Cast your vote to select the next collaboration! Nominate an article that could be greatly improved.

JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please advise: Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral

I read your notice, and I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

- I think that this contribution is essential: [1] because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong [2] is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned [3], also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

I would really like more input on this issue, so please answer. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. HappyInGeneral has been pushing his POV on many pages, especially on the Suppression of the Falun Gong page. His insistence of placing a picture in the intro has been rejected by many editors (check the page’s edit history and the talk page) yet he shows no sign of compromising. In trying to reach a compromise with him I created a section call “Abuses against Falun Gong practitioners” and placed this picture there. But HappyInGeneral deleted this section and moved the picture back to the intro. [4] He and his friends have also placed many tags on multiple pages without any justification. Since he has violated the 3RR rule and ignored your warning he should be blocked. --Samuel Luo 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You might remember this version of the page [5] which was deleted: [6]. Abusively and repeatedly [7]. --HappyInGeneral 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you restore material that are legitimate, no one is stopping you. As a matter of a fact I invited you to do so. --Samuel Luo 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, basically you deleted every instance of this information. So, let me know according to you POV what is legitimate? I can tell you this the material I inserted is very legitimate according to the Wikipedia rules and spirit, blanking information like you are doing is basically vandalism as I pointed out on the discussion page[8]. --HappyInGeneral 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral has ignored your warning and 3RR rule. In doing so HappyInGeneral has declared himself an edit warrior. If he is not punished for this behavior now, no one will care about Wiki rules any more.

The edit warning on that page is mostly about a provocative and contested image added by HappyInGeneral. Many editors have rejected placing this picture in the intro. In trying to reach a compromise with him I created a section call “Abuses against Falun Gong practitioners” and placed this picture there. But HappyInGeneral deleted this section and moved the picture back to the intro thus starting a round of revert war.[9] --Samuel Luo 06:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Guys, I am not an administrator and I will not ban anyone, I was hoping that both stop with this edit war, but now I know that it is a very long discussion. I will try to comment on Suppression_of_Falun_Gong, but I do not have certainty if I will really do. Carlosguitar 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yet in order to make it valid the following questions must be addressed:

1. Is the information well sourced?
2. Is the information relevant?
3. Do we have consensus on that page?

My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.

1. +
2. Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
3. If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.

As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.

Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page [10] however this was deleted: [11]. Abusively and repeatedly [12].

Also please review this section of the evidence page: [13]

PS: Note that this is question is here for more then a month now: [14]

I would really like more input on this issue, which would be also very much appreciated. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Parjour "déplacement"

Hi, I am 100% positive that the translation of "déplacement" ought to be "movement" as (a) that appears to be the most common translation out there and (b) my knowledge as a native French speaker tells me so.

I'm not going to get in your grill about it and revert your reversion of my change, but I'd appreciate it if you read my short note at the bottom of the talk page and if you feel it appropriate change the word back to "movement" or "moving". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dougalg (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

AFD discussion

Hello, you participated in the AfD discussion for Lowercase i prefix. That discussion was closed with a "keep" decision but I felt there was enough consensus to warrant merging the information to Internet-related prefixes. I have placed a comment regarding my decision to go ahead and perform this merge on the talk page here and as you participated in the original discussion wished to alert you to this action and invite you to comment if you felt it was inappropriate. Thanks! Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made World's Strongest Man, you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -Panser Born- (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fedor Emelianenko

Hi, I just reverted this edit you made because of the heavy vandalism before and after it - I'm working on restoring your edit right now. east.718 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am new at this and was going to create a new article about "The Algorithm." The problem is that I do not have a GFDL license and most of what I was going to use for the article is text from the website. Since you worked on the Ask.com article, I thought you could help me somehow.

Brazil

Obrigado pela ajuda que estás dando para melhorar o artigo. Parabéns e continue... =D Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 01:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Page

Greetings.

I believe you have made a mistake when editing Brazil's page.

You replaced this sentence: "Democracy was re-established in Brazil when the current Federal Constitution was promulgated" with this "Democracy was re-established in Brazil when Constituent Assembly and promulgation of Constitution in 1946".

That statement is actually incorrect, because Brazil lost its democratic system again in 1964, when the military regime was established. Note the military imposed a new Constitution in 1967. So the previous sentence you edited was correct, because the current democratic system has been re-established in 1988 with the current Constitution.

Also, the sentence you wrote is grammatically incorrect.

I kindly suggest you revert your edit.

Sparks1979 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. The statement has a "historical" touch to it.

Sparks1979 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. Look this Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I don't see how adding factual information to the Anneliese van der Pol page that keeps getting removed is vandalism. Perhaps you could clarify a bit? 24.131.113.239 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, according to WP:BLP policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". Please provide reliable source to your statement. Thanks. Carlosguitar 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

its response

Hello. First of all, I'm very sorry if you were hurt by that little joke. It was meant to be harmless and it was not my intention to make fun of you. As for the grammar, one should use "his" if Mattbr is a man (of any age), "her" if Matt is a woman (of any age) and "its" if Matt has no gender. Because there is often no way to know whether a given RfA candidate is a man or a woman, people sometimes write "he/she" just to be safe and this is what my joke wsa refering to. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Possessive "its" is also usually reserved for inanimate objects and animals, which is why it's unusual to see it in reference to a person, but it does not appear as though English is your first language, so there's really no harm. Leebo ^T/C 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking that I said something prejudicial to Matt using "its". But, thanks for instructions guys, now I will go to use "your" to a person. Carlosguitar 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say I think you are doingagreat job in the discussion of the Parkour article. Unfortunately my POV is too obvious to be of any help or else I would :)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil

Olá Carlos! Queria lhe convidar para ver o novo layout do Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil. Dê uma olhada, se você tiver algo em mente para melhorar a documentação ou outras coisas, vá até a página de discussão. O Brasil precisa de você! (rs) Obrigado e boas contribuições! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Carlos, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

28 08 tfd

You closed this debate as speedy delete, but did not tag it for speedy deletion. I think it would be better to tag it for speedy delete first, then if it deleted, and the admin who carries out the speedy deletion doesn't, close the tfd. Peter 14:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Username report

Regarding the username User:Im2idiotic, which you reported to usernames for administrator attention, which known vandal is the name similar to? I don't recognize it. Leebo ^T/C 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I misunderstand Twinkle statement. But this user are still inserting unreferenced content. Carlosguitar 17:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perhaps you may have better luck leaving the user a personalized message that describes exactly what he or she is doing wrong. The templated messages can be vague. I think you may have been looking for administrator intervention against vandalism, for reporting users who vandalize past a final warning; Usernames for administrator attention is just for violations of the username policy. Leebo ^T/C 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How come you can have a personal page but others cannot?

My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk 20:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you mods have started to pay attention...damn

What joke? I was simply stating a fact :)

Social Issues in Brazil page

Greetings.

I noticed you removed a large part of the text I inserted in the aforementioned section.

Did you remove it because of the article size problems? If this is the reason, I can think of many other less important sections that can use some shortening first (examples: sports, languages, demographics, etc).

“Social issues” is a broad term. It’s not restricted to poverty. Therefore, I made some brief mentions to violence, lack of urban planning, social security debts and flaws in the prison system. All of them are crucial social problems in Brazil. If you check archived discussions in the talk page, several users were calling for an expansion in the social section and I finally did it a few days ago.

I took the liberty of restoring the text you removed. If you didn’t like the contents, I will be happy to discuss constructively with you so we can improve the information rather than simply scrapping it.

Sparks1979 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I made brief mention to general problems. That is what the general “country” article is for. Briefly mentioning something.

I’m not taking it to the talk page, because I’m not the one trying to remove things. I don’t see a problem here. The talk page has already been used for these purposes in the past, and users agreed the “social issues” section required expansion.

You mentioned:

WP:FA – how does the contribution violate it?

WP:SIZE – again, how does the contribution violate it?

Be more specific. I’m trying to talk here; you are just repeating yourself by tossing around rules. You say “WP:FA”, “WP:SIZE” – I don’t see the contributions as a violation of either. Please, take the time to explain yourself in more detail. Sparks1979 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Page Again

Hello again.

• I’m not owning Brazil’s page or any of its sections. I’m solely defending my opinion about the "social issues" section. That doesn’t mean I’m “owning” anything.
• Why should we remove important information about Brazil’s social issues because of length, if irrelevant information about sporting achievements and details about the Portuguese language can stay? So far you have presented no answer to this simple question.
• I don’t think prose is a major problem in Brazil’s page, but if the majority of users think text can be relocated, I’m fine with that. However, we have to relocate text carefully. Relevant information should stay in the article, whereas in depth details and less important data can go to sub pages.
• My opinion deserves respect just like any other user, whether you agree with it or not. Saying I’m making a “teatro” just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t seem very respectful.
• You seem quite straightforward about deleting text, but what major contributions have you made towards the article prose? Remember, it’s easy to delete things, but it’s a lot harder to actually write them up.

Sparks1979 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal Problem

You seem to have taken the “social issues” discussion rather too personally. We could have had a pleasant, constructive debate. I don’t understand why you had to resort to little personal remarks. We could have probably agreed about the whole thing if you had bothered engaging civilized conversation in our talk pages. Unfortunately I can see you had other ideas.

Nobody is violating Wikipedia rules. It’s ok to talk, debate and to disagree. That doesn’t mean people are “owning” pages, nor “disrupting” articles.

As for “social issues”, I’m a democratic person. If the majority agrees it has to be removed, I will not oppose. I don’t participate in edit wars. However, I don’t see anyone else complaining about the section besides you.

Try to chill out dude.

Sparks1979 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Heheh... I can see you really turned this into a personal thing. :) You've been making no contributions in Brazil`s page other than in the "social issues" subsection. Is it because you don't want to see certain social problems "exposed"? I can only guess so, since you refuse presenting convincing explanations for your latest edits.

And yes, I moved the section to demographics. And yes, expect the prose to be reviewed soon enough, with references. And yes, I removed almost 25 KB from the article, because I respect decisions coming from the majority.

I contribute generally in the article. You make almost no contributions, letting your personal agenda command your actions. Sparks1979 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanity show? lol? I've deleted more than 20 lines of my own work in order to shorten the article, according to what the majority wanted to do. I can understand you have developed some type of personal problem with me, but I can live with that. After I checked your history of contributions, I started to comprehend why you've been behaving this way. You don't really "write" much do you? Most of your contributions are restricted to bothering other people about their edits and flattering administrator candidates. Maybe one day you will understand the joy of actually writing things other people will have the chance to learn from. I still prefer to believe you have good intentions at heart, but unfortunately at the moment your actions don't show it. You are a very judgmental person I can see - perhaps you should take a look at your own work. Oh wait, I forgot... you don't write much. For now, it's your loss. Sparks1979 03:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m here to ask you to think about the article before thinking about your personal wish of bashing me. You don’t have to like my ideas. You have freedom to have whatever opinion you want to have about anything. But when you edit Wikipedia, you have to be neutral and think about the well-being of the encyclopedia and its community, not about your own personal rage towards other users.

I have proved the article no longer has problems related to WP:SIZE, because the prose stands at 41 Kb. There are other Featured Articles about countries that are larger: Canada (42 Kb), Hong Kong (48 Kb), South Africa (60 Kb). So there’s absolutely no need to remove prose because of size. We are well within the 30-50 Kb margin recommended by Wikipedia.

If you want to get the article size down to 80 Kb, which is fine by me, you have to address other aspects: there is an excessive number of “external links”, many related to tourism. There are too many references, many redundant and some of questionable quality. There is an unnecessary table in the demographics section that takes a lot of space.

Instead of addressing such problems, you have been desperately trying to demonstrate your point by deleting perfectly valid information just because they didn’t have citations. The correct procedure in these cases is to look for the citation yourself or to add a “citation needed” tag, not delete the information. And not every single word in the article needs a citation. Look at Australia, for instance. The whole intro (3 paragraphs) doesn’t have a single reference. That didn’t stop it from getting FA status.

I’m not asking you to like my ideas. You have the right to disagree with anything I post. All I ask you is to try being constructive. Help improve the article. At the moment you are helping deteriorate it. If you are feeling so angry with me, then avoid making edits under influence of your personal feelings. Work on another page for a while or go play some guitar to cool your head off.

I’m not here to fight you or anybody. I’m here to improve articles according to the wishes of the majority.

Peace. Sparks1979 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Test for Brazil page

Carlos, estou trabalhando um modelo de layout para ser aplicado no artigo Brazil. Você poderia me ajudar em algumas coisas? Abraços; Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlos!!! Espere... ainda não é hora de nomear o artigo! Você poderia responder a minha pergunta acima? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Desculpa, só entrei agora na internet. Pode fazer suas modificações cara. Se vc aceitas sugestões, seria legal ver uma foto na esquerda e outra na direita, até o final do artigo, tipo revesando, aparece uma foto na esquerda depois outra na direita. Carlosguitar 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sem problemas! Bom, eu já havia feito isso más de acordo com WP:MOS e WP:PIC (segundo o Dali-Llama) as imagens diretamente abaixo de seções de segundo nível (===) devem ser alinhadas à direita. Então achei melhor alinhá-las à direita, exceto as imagens da seção "History", que se forem alinhadas à direita, ocasionam quebras de seções.

Na minha opnião, o artigo fica melhor sem as tabelas "Largest cities" e "Skin color/Race". Assim eu queria sua ajuda para adicionar essas informações ao texto da melhor forma possível. Queria pedir que você se sinta à vontade para editar a minha sub-página. Obrigado. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah ta, se o WP:MOS está dizendo isso, entao é melhor segui-lo. Sobre a tabelas tem certeza que quer um texto em prosa? Vc gastou tanto tempo fazendo, organizando e arrumando elas. Eu fiz algumas modificaçoes na sua sub-pagina. Carlosguitar 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sim, é melhor retirá-las. Elas "poluem" o artigo. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bom, 98% do trabalho já foi... ufa! (rs). Más estava pensando em reduzir um pouco (pouco mesmo) a seção "Economy" e aumentar (também bem pouco) a introdução da seção "Geography", você pode me ajudar? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazil review

Hello, Brazil article was rewrite, could you review again if meets WP:GA?. Thank you Carlosguitar 00:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to nominate it again first. The article is looking good though. Epbr123 17:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Você pensa né... Más os usuários podem reclamar... Espere a votação, e então podemos nomear o artigo. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Felipe, então eu vou pedir um peer review. O que acha? Forget it. Carlosguitar 01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, eu vou arrumar manualmente. Quando eu terminar, podemos nomear o artigo. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlos, eu analisei aqui as mudanças, e não consegui encontrar algum erro. Vale lembrar que na minha versão eu aumentei um pouco os textos, é isso? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Olha, eu vou recolocar minha edição, você aponta os problemas e eu os reparo na mesma hora, ok? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronto eu já arrumei, algumas edições por mim, Chico e outros editores foram perdidas, mas já recoloquei. Pede la a revisão de GA. Carlosguitar 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bom, ainda há a questão das imagens da seção "History". E não gostei muito das reduções dos textos das seções "Social issues" e "Culture". Elas ocasionaram quebras de seções... posso expandi-los novamente? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Também não gostei de você ter retirado aquelas "janelas" das referências. Você pode explicar o porquê de retirá-las? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Felipe, aqueles conteudos estão sem fonte, sem fonte o artigo não passa no GA, acho melhor diminuir o tamanho das imagens para nao quebrar as seçoes, infelizmente os PC usam resoluções diferentes e nem sempre é possivel formata uma pagina para ficar boa em todas.

Sobre as janelas no Footnote, elas nunca devem serem usardas veja WP:REF "Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring." Carlosguitar 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bom, quanto as janelas tubem. Mas pode ter certeza, aquele conteúdo não irá alterar em nada a nomeação. Se alguém reclamar nós apagamos. Vou recolocar e você pode nomear o artigo. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, vou avisar o revisor anterior. Carlosguitar 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey Carlos? I'm having a guess at your name haha! I was just wondering, you edit the Parkour page a lot, are you a Traceur yourself? Or just like watching? Drizzt Jamo 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, yes my name is Carlos. I do not know if my parkour is good enough to self nominate as a traceur. But sometimes I do some small vaults, precision jumps, cat balance and muscle-up. But nothing comparable to David Belle and Sebastien Foucan, hehehe. Carlosguitar 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

YAY! I got your name right!! Well I am a traceur myself and I live for parkour! I got some pictures of me doin parkour here if your interested in having a look! Well keep up the Parkour and editing! Talk to you later Carlos! Good to meet you! Drizzt Jamo 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your speedy request

Hi, it's good to finally "meet" you (É bom encontrar-te como finalmente) My Portuguese is not so good. I see your name in the various AFD debates and given the similarity of names I noticed you and when I try to search a page to find where I commented to see if there's a response, I sometimes find your name when I search for Carlos. So, when I took off the speedy tag on Gay:trade.tv I didn't realize until going to the afd that it was you who had put in on - I think it will get deleted there. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 06:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah no problem, I unsure if WP:CSD is applicable. Carlosguitar 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good faith

Hello,

I asked him what does GA review mean. I´d like to see where is Collor mentioned and alos where is the '90 economy mentioned. Can yoy help me?

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mudança brusca? Eu apenas mudei 3 imagens, passaria despercebido se ela não tivesse revertido. Eu apenas quis melhorar a qualidade das imagens. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Eu acho que á essa altura do campeonato nada passa despercebido no Brazil article. lol--Dali-Llama 02:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlos, eu estava pensando seriamente eu remover a imagem "Brazilian people". Ela é polêmica, alguns usuários reclamam. Acho melhor deixá-la apenas no artigo principal, colocando no lugar, a imagem de São Paulo que está acima. E substituindo a imagem de São Paulo por uma da Barragem de Itaipu na seção "Economy". O que acha? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cara vamos esperar mais um pouco para mudar as imagens, eu não quero ver esse artigo falhando só por causa de estabilidade, só espera a gente pegar o GA ai podemos ver com mais tranquilidade essas questoes das imagens.

Sobre a foto "Brazilian People" concordo totalmente com vc, é melhor remover mesmo para evitar esses ataques pessoais, e um monte de futuros problemas que podem surgir.

Sobre as outras fotos de Sao Paulo e Barragem de Itaipu, é melhor discutir no talk page, mas nao faça nenhuma mudança por enquanto, por causa da estabilidade do GA. Carlosguitar 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GA

Olá,

Bem, li os itens que compõem o GA. Qto ao artigo "Brasil", creio que apresenta diversas passagens que não estão respeitando o GA. A começar por falar de Collor apenas como corrupto, escândalos, etc. Bem, na minha visão, corrupção e escândalos estão mt mais ligadas ao governo Lula da Silva. Gostaria de saber a opinião de vcs.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oi, eu removi o termo corrupçao e deixei um pouco mais neutro o conteudo sobre o Fernando Collor. Peço gentilmente para nao alterar brucamente o artigo Brasil porque estamos no meio de uma revisao por um outro editor, e qualquer alteraçao pode falhar os esforços para torna-lo um GA.

Eu recomendo vc discutir na talk page do Brasil dos futuros problemas que podem aparecer, e tambem queria lembra-la que o artigo tem um limite de espaço e nao é possivel escrever todo o que queremos, veja WP:SIZE. Carlosguitar 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlos, eu discordo do edit que você fez em relação ao NPOV do Collor. Eu acho que a Ludovicapipa está contestando a falta de aspectos positivos do Collor, não a presença dos negativos. Acho que a solução mais fácil é remover essa última frase ("though this is contested by some"), que é especulativa de qualquer forma. Ele foi impeached por corrupção, isso é fato. Se ele cometeu corrupção ou não está aberto á discussão. Acho melhor remover o ponto de conflito á essa altura do que mudar o ponto pra um lado ou pra outro. Achei melhor essa mudanca partir de você para não haver a impressão de um edit war.--Dali-Llama 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalillama, acho melhor deixar sem o termo corrupçao, para nao dar impressão que ele cometeu tal corrupçao. Me corrija se estiver enganado, mas houve investigançao sobre a sua administraçao, houve pericia técnica e mesmo assim o Supremo Tribunal Federal inocentou ele de todas as acusações. Mesmo se ele cometeu delitos em sua administraçao, nos nao podemos afirmar justamente pela faltas de provas contra ele.

Acho melhor deixar sem o termo corrupçao, só com escandalos, o que acha? Carlosguitar 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

É um exercício interessante em semântica, pelo seguinte: Collor foi impeached pelo senado/câmara por corrupção, isso é fato. Quando isso se tornou um assunto criminal (e julgado pelo STF por causa do foro especial), ele foi inocentado. Então a seguinte frase: "Collor was impeached from office due to corruption charges", está correta, já que no final foram só as acusações e indícios que causaram seu impeachment (pra melhor ou pra pior), e não uma condenação criminal que nunca houve. Como a frase está agora está okay: e como tudo no artigo Brazil, desde que o artigo principal do assunto esteja correto (o que eu estou tentando fazer agora), tudo bem.--Dali-Llama 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fernando Collor

Carlos, eu estou tentando editar a página do Fernando Collor e estou em um pequeno conflito com a Ludovicapipa. Você poderia comparar a minha versão com a dela e opinar no talk page? Obrigado!--Dali-Llama 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FCM

Olá Carlos e Dali,

Vc está tentando editar e eu tb!

Creio que vc pode mencionar fatos de corrupção, mas não deve deletar os demais, fatos econômicos, dados de inflação, privatização, comércio livre, importações. Ademais, vc precisa citar fontes, links, etc.

Tb questiono que vc tenha deletado o memso conteúdo no artigo sobre Brazil. Questiono a veiculação da capa da Veja: "O ano em que nos livramos dele".

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazil's article

Estou trabalhando em uma nova versão para o artigo que pode reduzí-lo em 5kb. Veja aqui, mas ainda é só um modelo. Eu removi alguns textos só para ver quanto o artigo poderia ser reduzido (sem ocasionar quebras de seções), agora vou pedir ajuda a alguns usuários para resumir os textos adequadamente, deixando só o que há de mais importante. Você pode ajudar? Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Desculpe, não entendi o que você quis dizer... Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A sua ultima edição no artigo Brazil, vc reverteu para uma versao antiga e um monte de ediçoes foram perdidas. Olha no historico do Brazil. Carlosguitar 20:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

information san antonio

You deleted the link to the site I listed. I'm curious as to why. I re-listed it but need to know if I broke some sort of rule. It definitely deserves listing compared to some of the other sites that are currently listed. Your feedback is appreciated. -Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtt124 (talk • contribs) 03:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Your comments

1) I didn’t harass you in your talk page, because I’ve never made any offensive statements towards you. Harassment = offensive statements. Sending you messages does not equate to harassing you. I can send you messages in your talk page whenever I want to. What I can’t do is offend you. If you think I’ve offended you in your talk page, call a Portuguese-speaking administrator (Carioca) to read the messages I sent you and let him decide. If you want to report me for writing in Portuguese, I remind you I’ve seen you writing in Portuguese too.

2)You sent me a warning to stop personal attacks. I sent you a warning to stop personal attacks too, because in my view, you attacked me in our long discussion in Brazil's talk page. You called my contribution a “vanity show” and you wrongly accused me of rule infringement.

3)You can warn me and I can’t warn you? How does this work?

4)I send you a long message in your talk page trying to put an end to our mutual animosities. You didn’t even bother replying, so don’t come here trying to play the goody goody boy on me.

5)I always assume good faith. But when clearly good faith isn’t there, I’m not forced to assume otherwise.

6)I don’t have a problem with Opinoso not agreeing with IBGE. I really believe he thinks the DNA studies are superior. What I have a problem with is the fact he tried to impose his opinion, as well as the fact he tends to go personal on people. Anyway, I’ve just sent him a long message in Portuguese where I try to put an end to this.

7)You are not an administrator, so you don’t get to decide whether people get blocked or not. You have a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia rules, but, I’m sorry for saying this, I find your interpretation of the very same rules quite poor.

8)Last but not least, I didn't personally attack Opinoso, although I think I was a bit over the top while commenting his replies. I've apologized to him in his talk page. Still, no rule breaking from me, at least not in my view.

Sparks1979 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

I thought we had put an end to our previous issues, but I can see you are back for another round of unfounded accusations.

Well, here is a copy of my reply to your latest outburst in Talk:Brazil.

"You are clearly wrong. I will presume you mean Encyclopedia Britannica when you say “Bricannica” has no mention to poverty and violence in Brazil. How about this for violence? “Violence and corruption among police are serious concerns in Brazil, exacerbated by low wages and educational attainment. Each year police in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are implicated in hundreds of extrajudicial killings as well as in drug trafficking, kidnapping, theft, and other crimes. Attempts at reform have been frustrated by the sheer number of such incidents and by frequent conflicts between police agencies.” [15]. Information on poverty is scattered around. For instance: “Infant mortality rates are still a serious concern but vary widely according to region and socioeconomic status: in the affluent urban districts the rate is quite low, but in the favelas and other poor communities, particularly in the Northeast, it is much higher.” [16] Another bit of information on poverty: “As a result, members of the middle class have been increasingly forced to live in minuscule apartments in densely packed high-rises, while the poor are confined in nearby favelas (“shantytowns”) or in residential areas that may be several hours away from their workplaces.” [17] It goes on and on, that is, if you actually bother looking around. False dilemma? Cut the crap. That comes from Britannica Online, your all-mighty "professional" encyclopedia. Give up dude."

Happy now?

Sparks1979 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:SIZE First you said your problem with social issues was “always about size”:

If you rewrite social issues without increasing WP:SIZE I will not oppose. The problem was away with WP:SIZE. And I am not the user that have been reverted by 2 established users with good reasons to removed his statement. Carlosguitar 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I proved there were no longer any problems related to excessive size. Yet, you continued complaining. Where’s the coherency in the things you say? Wasn't WP:SIZE the big problem?

2. WP:WPC You then went on to complain about the article not following WikiProject Countries. I carefully explained “social issues” is a subsection and not a section – thus, it doesn’t violate WikiProject Countries, because it gives editors freedom to create subsections according to their own understanding. I also showed you examples of featured articles that contain unique sections not listed in WikiProject Countries, such as “flora and fauna” in Australia, “transport” in Cambodia, or “tourism” in Pakistan. Dali-Llama has recently provided more examples. Note these are all examples of unique sections. If we examine subsections, every featured article has unique peculiarities.

Brazil has no unique sections, only unique subsections, which are allowed by WikiProject Countries. In short, Brazil follows WikiProject Countries quite strictly. Surprisingly, you still keep bringing up WikiProject Countries. Hey, it would be nice if you could assume your mistakes sometimes.

3. Citations. Since you apparently can’t admit you’ve lost the argument, you started moaning about citations.

I provided good sources (BBC News, international organizations) for each word you challenged, including the stuff you call “biased”.

4. Comparisons with other encyclopedias. You kind of ran out of arguments, yet here you are for one last round of outbursts. Now you are bringing up these “professional encyclopedia” comparisons. It seems you don’t understand the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to emulate other encyclopedias. It tries to push the boundaries a bit further, by inviting any user to contribute with their knowledge. That’s why Wikipedia is 20 times larger than Encyclopedia Britannica. If you want Wikipedia to include only what the so-called “professional” encyclopedias have in their database, then what’s the point of having Wikipedia in the first place? That’s not to mention if we were to follow your flawed reasoning, we would have to delete three quarters of Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, I still proved your latest outburst wrong. You challenged me by saying “Encyclopedia Britannica” had no mentions to violence and poverty in Brazil. I quote you: False dilemma! Since when Bricannica does not have credibility because does not cite ANY information about poverty and violence? Again, major encyclopedias does not have ANY citation about social issues as we have here. Oh yeah, certainly editors which are following WP:WPC, and trying to make article more professional are hiding information. Carlosguitar 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In 10 minutes I found mentions to poverty and violence. Encyclopedia Brittanica is always accurate and unbiased? I find the use of “minuscule apartments” quite biased. I bet if I had written that here, you would be throwing your usual round of rants at me. :)

Now you want me to go check every other encyclopedia online? I’m sorry, I’m not going to do that. You were shouting about Britannica not having any mentions to “poverty” and “violence”, I found them in 10 minutes.

This is getting boring. Why don’t you try helping by actually writing something instead of pointing your finger at other people all the time? Sparks1979 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlosguitar

Na boa, qual é o problema? Não quer que tenha "social issues" na página do Brasil, beleza, todos já entenderam a tua opinião. O problema é que ninguém concordou contigo, muito menos com as tuas "razões". Talvez no futuro apareceram vários editores que queiram transformar o artigo numa página turística, aí vc vai ter a maioria e vai poder pintar e bordar a contento. Enquanto isso não acontecer, tente no mínimo aceitar o que a maioria escolheu.

Tentei conversar numa boa com você quando saiu reclamando de "NPOV", e até reconheci os erros que cometi. E vc? É tão difícil assim reconhecer quando erra? Cara, se for isso, tá na hora de começar a trabalhar esse ego, porque tua argumentação na página do Brasil já tá beirando o ridículo.

Por enquanto, não acho que haja mais muito o que melhorar na página do Brasil, então vou passar para outras páginas. Não acho que você vá "trombar" mais muito comigo, o que é bom para os dois, mas se ainda há um problema pessoal a ser resolvido, então tenha a postura correta, e discuta no lugar apropriado, minha talk page.

Segue cópia da mensagem enviada ao Dali-Llama, para o teu conhecimento.

Não tenho nada contra o cara. Até acho que ele faz a sua parte revertendo vandalismo e tal. Por outro lado, aparentemente ele criou animosidades contra mim, pelo fato de eu defender uma visão mais "equilibrada" da descrição do Brasil. Não acho que temos de ficar metendo o pau, mas se vamos mostrar nossos avanços no setor econômico e falar de nossa exuberância natural, porque não mencionar nosso vergonhoso atraso social? Quem olhar os arquivos da página de discussão do Brasil vai ver que perdemos vários ótimos editores porque gente como o sr.Carlosguitar acha que isso é uma revista turística. Até aí tudo bem, quer pensar assim, pense. Mas não venha reclamar quando a maioria quer investir numa visão mais realista da coisa.

Bom, ninguém tem de simpatizar com ninguém, basta haver respeito. O problema começou quando o cara apareceu me acusando de ter quebrado umas vinte regras do Wikipedia (rs), sem apresentar qualquer fundamento para isso. Na minha concepção, a partir daí passei a ter o direito de resposta. Pode parecer que não, mas no fundo não gosto de discussões tolas como essas que vem acontecendo na página do Brasil. Pode notar que nunca dou o pontapé inicial em nenhuma briga. Por outro lado, se alguém chega acusando ou agredindo, vou ao menos exercer meu direito de resposta, e gosto de usar o tom que a pessoa usa, pois normalmente é só assim que ela entende.

Ainda assim, tentei levar tudo para a talk page particular dos usuários, mas não adiantou. Ele se recusa a responder minhas mensagens (embora certamente as leia). Faz questão de levar tudo para a talk page do Brasil. Sei lá, vai ver que é uma necessidade de chamar atenção. Primeiro, ele quis eliminar a seção por causa do tamanho... provamos que não havia mais problemas relacionados ao tamanho. Insatisfeito, ele voltou reclamando que o artigo violava o padrão fixado pelo Wikipedia em WikiProject Countries. Provamos para ele que essa regra não é seguida a ferro e fogo nem nos featured articles. Não adiantou. Lá veio ele mais uma vez me acusando de NPOV e exigindo citações, algumas delas para obviedades (como altos níveis de violência no Brasil). Tentei dialogar com o cara, assumi que partes da seção estavam mal escritas por falha minha e aceitei que alguns trechos fossem deletados. Providenciei todas as citações que ele quis. Pensei: "enfim, vamos ter paz nesse artigo". Qual não foi minha surpresa quando uns dois dias depois o cara está de volta, agora com esse papo de que a Britannica, que é "séria", não faz menção aos problemas de pobreza e violência no Brasil. Pensei: "vamos tirar isso a limpo". Dei um pulo na Britannica e em 10 minutos, numa lida superficial, achei várias menções à pobreza e à violência, transcrevendo algumas delas na talk page do Brasil e na talk page dele. Pensei: "e agora, o que será que ele vai inventar?"

Ele poderia ter assumido que está errado, ou se isso dói muito em seu ego, poderia ao menos ter ficado quieto. Mas não... lá está ele de volta falando sei lá eu o que agora - mas o que é pior, insiste em me acusar disso e daquilo.

Na boa, ou esse cara está sendo malicioso e provocativo - fica insistindo no erro, mesmo sabendo que está errado (é o que chamaríamos de "litigância de má-fé" no Direito), ou ele simplesmente é meio limitado e não está conseguindo raciocinar direito. Das duas, acho que é má-fé. Ele não parece ser burrinho não. O problema dele é que não consegue aceitar que está errado, aí é complicado. Fica aí enchendo o saco ao invés de ajudar. Deve ser por isso que se considera um "recluso" - conviver com gente assim é difícil mesmo.

Enfim, por mim o assunto acabou. A questão é - será que ele está disposto a parar de encher o saco? Ou será que ele vai voltar para continuar com suas acusações e reclamações?

O que você tem a sugerir? Sparks1979 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sparks1979 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Estou escrevendo minha resposta agora, Carlos. Talvez seja um pouco de WikiFilosofia, mas sugiro ambos a ler.--Dali-Llama 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)