John Asfukzenski ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — he's gotta be kidding, right? I mean "Ass-fucks-inski"? Surely he could be permablocked on the username alone? ► RATEL ◄ 07:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Basket of Puppies 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for your contributions. It was an outburst after I realized that Opinoso (a foreigner) has been controlling Brazilian related themes at wikipedia, and he has bullied Brazilians (check the history of his posts, some are contributive, but in most cases he bullies Brazilian posters). Opinoso claims to be Brazilian, but he is not, he is definitely a liar. As for the "lier" instead of "liar" I apologize.
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by WielandDerSchmitzFreiheit ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm only messaging you because you currently seem to be active :) Could you please take care of the speedy on Holtby please so I can move the page back? Thank you :) Jeni ( talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Are you doing OK? Please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Leave the Welsh placenames until you get agreement to add them. Any other addition will be regarded as vandalism. Skinmeister ( talk) 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[Non] conversation closed. (Anyone wanting earlier and later messages should see here.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If his work generally can't be described as photojournalism, then he shouldn't have been in "photojournalists" in the first place. If "photographers" is more appropriate and accurate, then he can certainly be in that one instead — but it's not necessary or desirable for a person to be in both categories at the same time. I'd note, however, that the article's lead paragraph describes him as essentially the father of photojournalism. Bearcat ( talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a bit confused by your actions at this article. It would seem that you are engaging in the edit war, [1] but also using your admin tools to then protect the article on your version. [2] Your comments on the talkpage also seem uncivil, as you are repeatedly referring to "boneheadedness". [3] [4] Is it possible that you are too close to the situation to be using admin tools? Or am I missing something? -- El on ka 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
for this block. I have grown SO tired of Mary Surratt dancing her way into our dreams and that pathetic little addition detailing her hanging. The only edits I tend to see at that article is that. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hoary! The blocked user Magyar nem ember, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magyar_nem_ember contribs) who made the disruptive edits at article Hedvig Malina returned as IP user: 195.30.17.81 and user:78.99.230.65. Please check this edit, and his contributions and compare them with user:78.99.230.65's edits, (his contributions).-- B@xter 9 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hoary do you find usernames like "Jews are not human" "Blacks are not human" and analogous usernames acceptable? Do you think a person with that type of attitude should be editing wikipedia under any account or circumstance? Do you find such name as prima facie evidence of it's user being a fascist editor, or do you view it as something not to worry about? Please answer these questions. Hobartimus ( talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A problem with a translation of a few words could be solved very easily and in multiple ways. If you visit this link [5] you see a bunch of irrelevant text and this "If your Hungarian is poor, you can leave us a message in English [ [6]]." the word "here" points to a place in the Hungarian wikipedia where there are hundreds of users who could help in translating two words ("nem" and "ember") as Magyar is already available in our own wiki. Or you can request the translation of the whole "sentence". Or alternatively you can use google translate to find out the meaning of these two words "nem" [7] and "ember" [8]. Hope that helped the issue. Hobartimus ( talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, "that film" has re-appeared in Marilyn Monroe. I've left comments on the talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to ask, "Being silly" is a real reason to block some one now? Now I don't question that s/he had it coming, but being silly, really? By the by, very quick, was it reported at WP:AIV or did you just notice it in the RCs? Rgood erm ote 08:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, talk about arrogance. Not only did you not want to answer his simple inquiry you called him an attention seeking moron in return. I understand there is no rigor in Wikipedia's administrator recruit policies but come on, it's as if you're trying to fit the definition by being a carefree asshole. Ytny 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so you thought he wasn't being serious when he vandalized the article, hence the suffix "being silly". That was a bit hard for me to comprehend with all of the pretentious synonyms and weird syntax used in your response, but I managed to figure out what you were trying to tell me so no biggy. Ytny 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMMORTAL SAMURAI ( talk • contribs)
I've re-nominated her for deletion. Pisomojado ( talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You blocked this user because of his multiple accounts in WIkipedia. The user is back as User:Grenzer22, with another sock poppet. Notice that both accounts are the same person because they speak the same things: [9] [10]. Opinoso ( talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please investigate this case ?. It seems to be another user with a sock puppet. Opinoso ( talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen your name in the history and discussions of photography-related articles. Could you tell me what you think of this article? I started it after reading a news story about the discovery of her photos. They seem to have created a buzz in the blogosphere, but there are few mainstream media sources so far and I found myself dependent on the blog of the discoverer Maloof for some facts. See my argument here. The question is whether it was premature to start this article in the first place? Perhaps it would be better to delete it for now and wait for some more substantial publication to appear? -- Hegvald ( talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. I was wondering if you could clear some doubts that I have, please. There is an user called Opinoso in the article Brazil who is causing trouble. Here goes a summary about him:
I must confess to you that I do not know what to do with him anymore. What should I do? - -- Lecen ( talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly upset by a lot of factors. For now, let's consider two of them.
First, you claim that Opinoso has misdescribed the content of a book by Darcy Ribeiro -- that in various places O claims that DR has written one thing whereas DR wrote something substantially different or remained silent on the subject. For this charge to stick, you have to do two things. (i) You must demand just where or how DR wrote what he's alleged to have written. DR's book appears here and in the following pages. If something is contentious, ask for the Portuguese-language phrase or sentence, so that it can be found. (ii) We have to find a neutral person who can read Portuguese in order to judge. Portuguese people of course qualify. (Don't look for them; I can try to do so.)
Secondly, you have elsewhere claimed that DR's book, even when correctly understood, is a piece of communist/Marxist propaganda with strong messages of racial hatred.[...] Now, I happen to think that some communists and Marxists can and do write excellent history books and I'm untroubled by part of your longer description of the book. However, I'm also troubled by part. Should DR's book (when represented fairly and accurately) be taken as scrupulous, reliable or fairhanded? Clearly you have one view on this and O has another. Deservedly or otherwise, obviously DR was a prominent writer. I'd have thought that the value of his writing would have received intelligent academic commentary by now. Can you cite some? -- Hoary ( talk) 10:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Above, you write officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only: Pardo. But here, after some reformatting and a lot of abridging, is what I read at Pardo:
In Brazil, Pardo is a racial classification used in the official census by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in censuses since 1950. The word is Portuguese for "brown" or "grey-brown". The other classifications are branco (" White"), negro (" Black"), amarelo ("yellow", meaning East Asians), and indígena ("indigenous", meaning Amerindians). ...
According to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), Pardo is a broad classification that encompasses Brazilians of mixed race ancestry, mulattos, and assimilated indigenous people (" caboclos"). ...
The Brazilian census is based on self-classification, then any person can claim to be Pardo. ...
Races are molded in accordance with perceptions and ideologies prevalent in each historical moment. In the 20th century, a significant part of Brazilians who used to self-report to be Black in earlier censuses chose to move to the Pardo category. A smaller but also significant part of the population that used to self-report to be White also chose to move to the Pardo category. Magnoli describes this phenomenon as the "pardização" (pardization) of Brazil. ...
Unofficially, Brazilians also use a racial classification of " moreno", a word that also means "brown". In a 1995 survey, 32% of the population self-identified as "moreno", with a further 6% self-identifying as "moreno claro" ("light brown"), and 7% self-identified as "pardo". Telles describes both classifications as "biologically invalid", but sociologically significant. ...As that's Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source. But for what it's worth I understand it as meaning that people are whichever they say they are among the options of branco, negro, amarelo, indígena and pardo. If so, people are free to fantasize (cf the character " Ali G") or even to misrepresent what they believe; but putting aside those extreme possibilities, somebody who would be commonly regarded to be mixture of θ and φ -- where θ and φ are any two of branco, negro, amarelo, and indígena -- would be entirely free to call himself θ or φ or pardo. I see no hint of anyone putting anyone in any category, and don't know what you mean by officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only unless it's merely there are no categories "Cabloco" or "Mulatto" in the census and it's assumed that such people will call themselves "Pardo".
Is there any pressing reason to go beyond self-reporting when analyzing the "race" of Brazilians? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
All of your quotations are from a single source. I've no reason to think that this encyclopedia was not edited intelligently or fairly, given what was known at the time. However, not only ideas on "race" but also knowledge of pigmentation have changed. I quote an admittedly brief remark in Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (Harper Perennial paperback, p.229):
If true, this makes one's skin color a very different matter from the average skin color of, say, one's 256 great×6 grandparents. So we can talk about either ancestors or color if we want to, but we'd be unwise to mix up talk about both.
Does this newer edition of Enciclopédia Barsa use the same language?
This is congruent with what Goldacre writes, and looks like the kind of thing that articles here should be based on, though they should not be based directly on such papers but instead based on academic works that aggregate or review these papers. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:
Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ( [11] [12]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:
This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ( [13] [14]), Sparks1979 ( [15] [16]) and Felipe Menegaz ( [17]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ( [18]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ( [19]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ( [20]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”( [21] [22] [23]) if not “racists” ( [24] [25]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ( [26]).
Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? -- Lecen ( talk) 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to find the facts here.
You say above:
If this is not just your personal theory, let's have some references for it. Please answer on the Talk:Pardo, which is on my watchlist. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, you left this message in my Talk Page:
This may have been intended to Lecen, since I don't think I mentioned you or Gwen Gale.
Anyway, I have to agree with Lecen regarding the problems in Brazil. In fact, I have pointed those problems (though in other articles, White Brazilian and German Brazilian specifically) before Lecen became involved in the article. There is an enormous difficulty here, because content and behavioural issues get mixed. When behaviour problems are pointed, they tend to be dismissed as "content disputes". When content problems are raised, it is recommended to find a third opinion. But a third opinion is very difficult to find, due to the behaviour problems (Brazilian editors have been chased away from articles on Brazil, particularly on Brazilian ethnicity and demography, by the behaviour Lecen has described above). So we have a vicious circle; we cannot solve behaviour problems, because they are content problems. And we cannot solve content problems, because they are caused by behaviour problems...
There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Brazil. In short, Opinoso wants to edit the page ("Yes, the article may be unblocked and the unreal Caboclo majority informations you added, which are not even cited in Barsa, will be erased.") to remove this part:
He argues by quoting that:
According to him, this is by the IBGE. But, unhappily, the link he gives as a source ( [32]) is not by the IBGE; it is a newspaper report about a publication that should have been issued in May 13th, 2008, but that I can't find in the internet.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about that. The IBGE counts Blacks ("pretos") and "pardos" separately. But other government agencies - notedly the Secretaria de Promoção da Igualdade Racial - sum the "preto" and "pardo" percents for practical purposes (which makes sence, since the "parda" population is subject to the same problems regarding racism and discrimination as the Blacks). This is then conflated into the notion that all "pardos" are Blacks, and therefore have African ancestry. It is by this reasoning - and in no other way - that it is possible to come to the conclusion that 85% of the population of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, or Piauí, is Black.
All bibliographic sources available (this includes Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro) point in a different direction: that the majority of the population in the Northern Region (where Amazonas, Pará and Amapá are located) is mainly of Euro-Amerindian descent, and even that the majority of the population of the Northeastern hinterland ("Sertão") has such characteristic.
When confronted with this, Opinoso opts out by making generic statements of the kind "all human beings are of African ancestry". Besides, of course, of accusing Lecen of using "personal theories", even "fake theories", and even more of course, posting this gem:
(This, of course, is a personal attack; and I find it very weird that while I am forbidden from "commenting on other editors", this individual gets along with this bald-faced lie. If you can do something to put an end to this situation, I would appreciate it very much.)
And to complement it, Opinoso states that the word "caboclo" makes no sence, and isn't used by Brazilians. Though, of course, it is much used by Darcy Ribeiro, who even has a whole chapter about "O Brasil Caboclo"... Ninguém ( talk) 17:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Ninguém, I was primarily writing to Lecen and not to you. But I was well aware that I was doing so on your talk page, and that you'd read it. In fact, I was hoping that you'd read it.
I can agree with much of what you write above, and find some of the other things you say above plausible. Again, I am most dissatisfied with the fact that articles on these subjects turn into battlegrounds, and am prepared to take drastic measures when I know that these are right and that they will stick. On the other hand I will not be swayed by the fact (if it is a fact; I haven't counted) that there's only one of him and six of you: unpopularity is not an offense.
I'm disappointed that Lecen doesn't seem to have responded to the section above on this page, in which I quote Goldacre. I've a hunch that a lot of the confusion results from lack of clarity and lack of scrupulousness over meanings. An imagined example: pardo may have meant both "brown [skinned]" and "multiracial" when it was assumed, or even sincerely believed, that brown skin and mixed ancestry meant the same thing. Now, however, it's known to geneticists that they do not mean the same thing, and this knowledge is starting to percolate elsewhere. Pardo may mean one thing to one scholar and another thing to another; a third scholar opposes its use because of its conflation of two factors that should not be conflated; a fourth uses it as a handy shortcut for what she asserts is a long-lasting misunderstanding; a fifth campaigns against it for ideological reasons that may color, but do not degrade her scholarly work. Meanwhile, the census merely presents it as a label, not (at that place, anyway) attempting to explain what it means by the label; the census bureau perhaps regrets the fact that it did previously explain what it meant by the term. Etc etc. All pure inventions on my part, but I guess there's something to it. So if there's a presentation of one source in which pardo does indisputably have this or that single meaning, I do not want this accompanied by anything that looks like a gleeful "So you see, he was wrong and I was right." I want to see willingness that the one citation, no matter how authoritative, may not be the whole story.
Incidentally I shall be very busy for about a week starting right now. I'll look sympathetically at helpful comments and also at diffs showing new misconduct; I'll probably not read essays (however justified) and I shan't be posting any comment as long as this one. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I made a stupid mistake there. I'm sorry for that, and for wasting your time writing this additional explanation for me.
Now let's look at the sources:
Geografia do Brasil, written by Marcos Amorim Coelho and published in 1996 (4th edition).
Panorama geográfico do Brasil, written by Melhem Adas and published in 1983 (1st edition).
O Brasil e suas regiões, written by Aroldo Azevedo and published in 1971.
Enciclopédia Barsa, written by various and published in 1987 in 16 volumes.
So this is the newspaper article. It's short and apparently unsigned. Portuguese is so close to French that I have the very flattering illusion that I can understand at least part of it: On the day that Brazil commemorates the 120th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, Seppir and IBGE present a map of the spatial distribution of the Black population. If I am right, then where is the map?
Uh, it's right here, I think. I see a map that's 9.4MB. I am not going to make yet more of a fool of myself by attempting to interpret it, but I'll make a wild guess that what it says is that there exist small (by Brazilian standards!) areas where such-and-such goes up to 85%. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The map shows the distribution of the "parda" and "preta" populations added up. As I pointed elsewhere, this may make sence to the SEPPIR, which is interested in the policy aspects of such distribution (quotas and other affirmative action). But it does not implies, contrary to what was suggested in the Talk Page, that the IBGE "counts" "pardos" as Blacks.
At this moment, it is quite clear that Blacks are by no means a majority in the Northern Region. Even Opinoso's sources point exactly to the contrary. Things are more complex in the Northeast, because the region is not homogeneous - the litoral has relied heavily on slavery on the past, especially the litoral of Bahia, Alagoas and Pernambuco, as well as of Maranhão. The hinterland - and possibly the litoral of Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte and Ceará - was not, because its predominant economic activity, husbandry, does not fit well with slavery. This is not to say that there was absolutely no slavery in this subregion, or that there aren't Blacks and "pardos" that are of African descent, of course.
Another thing is that the economy of the Northeast - including the slavery-based regions around Salvador and Recife - underwent a serious crisis before the abolition of slavery, and Northeastern slaveholders sold huge numbers of slaves to the more prosperous Southeast - this may have had some impact in the "racial" composition of the Northeast. Ninguém ( talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would propose this:
The divide between the Caboclo and Mulatto areas does not follow the borders between the states; rather, in each state, there is a gradient, from a litoranean area (particularly around the biggest cities such as Salvador and Recife), where there is a strong predominance of Mulattos, to the dry areas of the Sertão, where commercial crops like sugarcane or cocoa were not viable and extensive husbandry was the main economic activity, and where a population of Caboclos predominate. Ninguém ( talk) 11:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to establish a double standard. Some editors have to be very careful, write very carefully, source very carefully and cite very carefully. Others can just lie, misinterpret and distort sources, hurl insults around, and generally own articles without consequence. Ninguém ( talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (something he has already been warned several times not to do). Also a "blind reversal": [33].
Edit warring, blind reversal: [34].
Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [35], but the source is here: [36]. Article ownership.
Edit warring. Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [37]. Article ownership.
Edit warring, article ownership: [38].
Sheer article ownership: [39].
Edit warring, article ownership, summary edit states "This IS NOT the place to post texts from geneticists to claim a point o view": [40].
Edit warring, blind reversal (reintroducing grammatical mistake), summary edit includes "Do not destroy articles, please": [41].
Edit warring: [42].
Although the reverted edit is sourced, summary edit says "Removing personal criticism about American racial classification, This opinion is not neutral.": [43].
Gaming the system to keep false information in Wikipedia (summary edit states, "Removing unsourced. Brazilian census does not make any differenciation about racial mixture. If Caboclos are counted as Pardos, they're officialy counted as Afro-Brazilian."): [44].
Summary edit says, "Restoring old version of it because of its new unsourced racialist informations". But there is nothing "racialist" in the reverted edit: [45]
Edit warring: [46].
Article ownership: [47].
Attributing dishonest motives ("trying to sell") to other editors: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].
Edit warring: [53], [54], [55].
Attributing dishonest motives ("Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason") to other editors: [56].
Attributing dishonest motives to other editors: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Ninguém ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
From the last 48h: [63]. Notice this: "Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European, they don't." Nobody ever is simply mistaken or wrong; people who disagree with Opinoso are always acting in bad faith, "hiding" something, or "selling" ideas. Ninguém ( talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I created another section, because the old one is too big and hard to follow. I hope you don't mind. You had told me that in case the view towards ethnics groups had changed since the most recent book I used as source and someone else used it, it would blow away everything I said. It is true, I agre on that. So, I got the most recent edition of Panorama geográfico do Brasil (Geographic Panorama of Brazil, 456 pages) written by Melhem Adas published in 2004 and it is on its 4th edition (the one I used before was the 1st edition published in 1983). On page 268 there is the exact same picture that there was in the first edition on page 103:
The official website of the book is this one. However, you still did not explain to us how we would end the present dispute. The article can not be edited and even if it was, Opinoso would probably revert it or do something similar. Don't you think it would be better if you write something in the talk page? P.S.: The sole sub-ethnic group not found in the picture in Melhem Adas both books is the Juçara, because it is a very rare crossbreed and appears mainly in Maranhão. However, it is mentioned on Aroldo Azevedo and Igor A. G. Moreira works. P.S.2: Melhem Adas book is used in high schools in Brazil. -- Lecen ( talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, the article Brazil was unblocked today. Several editors (Hentzer, Debresser, Marek69, Elockid, etc...) has already made edits in it. One of them, Hentzer, even removed the dubious tags added by Opinoso. I don't know if that was precipated, but since the other editors were warned by me about the ongoing discussion and did not participate into it and have already made changes today, I will asssume they won't be part of it anyway. As the "score" is 4 x 1, I don't think what Hentzer did should be considered wrong, but that's my guess.
Anyway, that is not the reason I am writing to you. An unknown editor has changed the "mixed-race" info in the demographics section for "brown". [64]. I reverted it explaining the reason. [65]. Next he reverted what I did. [66] I will not lose my time reverting it a second time, however.
This unknown editor has no previously contribution in wikipedia. Check his log. [67]
I don't know if he is someone's suckpuppet, as this same someone is blocked until tomorrow. But I know that what he is doing is not right. Brazilian schoolars calls the multiethnic Brazilians "mestiços", that in a direct translation to English it would mean "Mixed one", or more precisely, "Mixed-race". The IBGE, however, calls it "Pardo". In plain English it means "brown". And IBGE does calls it "brown" in its reports written in English. However, in English, a person who is brown is someone who is descendant of white and black, such as U.S. President Barack Obama. And as you you are probably tired of hearing, the Brazilian mixed-race category (or Pardo) has descendants of whites and Japanese, whites and Indians, and also whites and blacks. So, to avoid confusion, it was written "mixed-race" in the text, as Brazilian schoolars calls it, and "Pardo", as IBGE names it. What should it be done about it? I am quite sure that if I revert it this unknown editor will do it again. And opening a discussion to deal with an unknown editor is not worth it. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Thomas McElwain, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McElwain (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bejinhan Talk 09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
You posted on Wikiproject Hungary some months ago (21 April 2009) about this article. At that time I had little interest in it. Since then, I have edited a few Hungarian articles where its name comes up.
the missus and I have discussed this, she is native Hungarian (I am English) and settled that really we think the name should be used as it would make sense to an English audience, so that Bratislava is the right term to use for that reason. Of course, in the Hungarian articles we then put the Hungarian afterwards. We might take the opposite tack if e.g. on a historical Hungarian article it would in our eyes make more sense to put the Hungarian first, but in any case we will put both, and say which languages they are (using {{
lang-hu}}
, {{
lang-ro}}
etc). Does that seem to make sense to you? It seems pointless to me to change the article's name, I agree it would be edit warring and I think as far as I know in English it is generally called Bratislava, that is what it should be called. There are similar edit wars with a lot of Croatian articles too, that used to be part of the Kingdom of Hungary. While I accept national sentiments can run high, if the historical context means to use the Hungarian name that should be used, and if it is the modern name, that should be used, cross refering to the other name. Would you agree?
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 07:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay... only today, after three and a half years without correction, did I notice (and revise) this phrase in the Felice Beato article: Photographs of the 19th century often now shows the limitations of the technology used... But who perpetrated this subject-verb disagreement? :~) Pinkville ( talk) 20:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm off out of here. You're an editor I'll remember fondly. So long! -- Paularblaster ( talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeing your notes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diactic, I'm thinking you may also be interested in these edits to Actant and Implied Author, though only the latter brings Mr Sumioka into the article. Clear the articles ain't, though I reckon separating wheat from chaff would be awkward. AllyD ( talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Interested in the deletion of the link to http://ugg-advice.weebly.com which (although provided by Weebly) supports much of the content of the main UGG® article by promoting the brand name and values and warns consumers away from fakes and fake retailers. I also added why it was added to the discussion section of the site. I created http://ugg-advice.weebly.com as a warning to others after myself falling foul to a fake retailer, and didn't want anyone else to make the same mistake. I make the presumption that many visitors to the UGG® article on Wikipedia may be looking for help and advice on finding the real deal.
http://ugg-advice.weebly.com isn't monetised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 ( talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
See the reply on my talkpage. Best, Athenean ( talk) 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
Thank you, Hoary. I hope I have actually improved the lead section of that article. The former version, with its circular and mistaken definition of "White Brazilian", bothered me no end.
I have tried to reformat the references, but I don't think with much success; I managed to include a summary (not exactly a title, but in this case a title would be misleading, for, as the tables are generated by ignoring some of the variables available that are irrelevant in the context - for instance, sex -, more would be promised in the actual title than delivered in the resulting table), but what you called, somewhat generously, "blahblahblah" is still there.
I am sorry that I can't help you with Greek, more than suggesting that the translitteration of "Φωτογραφίες" should be either "photographies" or "fotografies". My knowledge of Greek is null, or rather limited to half a dozen words and a rusty knowledge of the phonetic value of the alphabet. Ninguém ( talk) 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent photographs... I didn't know João Pina, but he obviously knows what to do with a camera.
Two small observations: first, "Polícia Militar" shouldn't be translated as "military police" (that would be "Polícia do Exército"). The Polícias Militares are armed and have a military hierarchy, with soldiers, sargeants, captains, etc., but on the contrary of the American "Military Police", they are not linked to the Army. Instead, they are state-level police organisations, under the command of state governors. Second, the game the drug dealer is playing is known in English as "table football", but in Brazil "futebol de mesa" (table football) is this quite different (and much more fun) game:
[69] Ninguém ( talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the midia... it makes us either apocalyptical or integrated.
But don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about The Guardian. Just pointing out an explanation about the structure of Brazilian Police, and - which is much nicer - about a popular indoor game in Brazil (about this one, they - The Guardian - aren't even wrong, after all).
I have done some further cleansing in White Brazilian. There are still some references to include, but this will have to wait, at least until tomorrow. And then I am going to "be bold" and completely remove the sections about Portuguese/Italians/Germans/et caterva, that turn the article into a piece about immigration instead of "White Brazilians". Ninguém ( talk) 02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your position and agree that the best way in this case is to order at internet. I will try to name some mail order bookstores, and briefly describe the topic of the books there, which are available and in English only. I hope this will help you a little. See below:
Kindly note that the prices are discounted but include 18% VAT, which should be exempted for export. Please don't hesitate to contact me for any other detail. Cheers. CeeGee ( talk) 09:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoary.
I am impressed to the request to justify things without even being notified of what are the things that should be justified.
But I am trying to stay cool. Not that it is easy, though. Ninguém ( talk) 02:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
And now... [70] Ninguém ( talk) 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, what future do you see for the discussion on the Talk Page, given that Opinoso has declared that he is too busy to discuss, and Off2riorob has up to the moment not stated any substantive objection to the changes I made? Is this going to be a repetition of the previous fiasco, in which I become the only person who has responsibilities toward the content of the article, while the others ignore all discussion but get to keep the article phrased in the way they propose? If you look again what happened there, you will see that your initial position - that Off2riorob's reversal should be discussed, that the burden of proof was on him - is already gone. It is up to me, now, to justify the changes I made, but this is going to be very difficult to do if the other editors don't clarify what they think is wrong with them. Ninguém ( talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hoary, You asked me to look up a Turkish interview about Nikos Economopoulos.
The interview (2006 by Özge Bayram) is about his exibition held in Pamukbank art gallery, İstanbul. Pamukbank was a former bank in Turkey (later on merged with Yapı Kredi Bank) Most banks in Turkey have their art galleries. They consider this as a public service ( and of course a type of advertisement.) The photos exibited are the same photos he had exibited in an Athens exibition of 1999 "100 photos in 20 years." Some interesting notes are as follows.
I hope this much is helpful to you. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 10:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Your guesses are right. I'll add the following:
I've over summerized his talk about the origin of Constantine Monos. Actually Nikos says " ...an America photographer whose family had moved from Anatolia to South Carolina "
You can easily translate the name of the article ." On the Balkans, paradox and photojournalism." You are right about the three authors. The guess is not stupid, just the reverse. Geniş Açı (English: Wide angle) seems to be the name of a magazine of photography published between 1996-2006. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, you can reach links to Ipektsi Award for peace and friendship between Greek and Turkish people over Yahoo search engine. But if you use the name İpekçi instead of Ipektsi (Ç is a Turkish letter) you'll find even more links. (Capital İ and ç are Turkish letters, you can copy and paste them.) Have a good time. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hoarey, I see you have protected the branco article, I would dispute that protection was needed, and if you are to preform administrator actions on an article that you should not be involved, also could you please clarify the status of your involvement as regards the article, I notice you have never edited the article but you have commented on the talkpage, I also noticed that when I reverted to the original article position that your were one of the two people that user ninguen immediately deemed to notify. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I know you requested to stop looking after articles that involve Brazil and all that. However, after some time translating, I managed to transcribe a chapter of a book about the Brazilian people that might interest you. The book was released this year, and take in account the most recent studies on the matter. Take a look, you will enjoy. You always said that it was sad that you did not know much about the subject. Now you will, but you will not be surprised.
Source: Narloch, Leandro. Guia politicamente incorreto da história do Brasil. São Paulo: Leya, 2009, pp.39-45 ISBN: 978-85-62936-06-7
My comments:
Thank you for the text above, which is indeed interesting. However, I note that it's from a book titled Guia politicamente incorreto da história do Brasil. I imagine that politicamente incorreto is a calque on "politically incorrect". Perhaps its meaning has diverged, but in English "politically incorrect" tends to be used in book titles as a label that the content unashamedly expounds ideas that are anathema not only to people on the left but also to people who are well-informed by recent, apolitical theory or research. So in English a "politically incorrect guide" to the history of XYZ tends to mean an uninformed guide to that history, produced by an ignoramus or charlatan, and likely to be touted by the windbags of "talk radio".
I shan't go through each of your points but will say that "race", as it's generally used, is indeed a social construct. (Earlier, I found an excellent source for this and I can find more if requested.) On the other hand "race" can have different meanings besides. If, or so far as, the article uses a different meaning, it should explain forthrightly that its discussion of "white people" or whatever is not about "white people" as the term is generally understood.
You have a long-running dispute with an editor that you say you despise. Of course you're within your right to despise anyone and anything, but expressing this is very unlikely to be helpful. If you have clear evidence of misconduct within the last 48 hours, you're free to bring it up at WP:AN/I or a more appropriate place, rather than to a particular admin. If you want to bring up long-term problems, then see this, but read it very carefully; I warn you that the process will take a lot of time and care and may well not be worth the effort or even backfire. Whatever measure you take, and however fairly and scrupulously you do it, your opponents are likely to quote back at you any earlier declaration that you despise the user in question. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I see that (partially by my fault) the discussion on the Talk Page has somewhat degenerated into a discussion about Ronaldo. On one hand, I think this exemplifies the extremely simplistic approach that prevails in all articles about Brazilian demography: Brazilians lie about their own race, White Brazilians are fake Whites, and Ronaldo is the living proof of that, because he is "pardo", ie, Black, but has publicly said he is White. On the other hand, it is turning the Talk Page into a general discussion, which I fear is not allowed (to common mortals, at least; Opinoso seems to belong in a different category).
I don't know if I should continue this discussion, because we are reaching a dangerous point here. Racism a la brèsilliene has a few rules; some (there are probably many more) of them seem to be:
Ronaldo broke rule #1, and, as such, opened himself to racist attacks. A few can be seen here: [72]. While the article by journalist Mirian Leitão is reasonably contained, it sparked a row of comments in the vein of, Let's send him to Alabama or mississipi state, leave him in a Redneck bar by a road, if he is welcomed, we shall find if he is really White... Brazilian racists, poor things, have few opportunity to publicly spew their hatred; they become very excited when someone makes a mistake like Ronaldo's - it is the rare and precious opportunity to make openly racist remarks under the cover of "political correctness" ("yeah, I'm calling him a nigga, but he deserves it, for being such a racial traitor...") I fear that the stream of blind hate we are seeing in the Talk Page isn't much better than this.
But I think this moves us further away from solving the problems in White Brazilian. I have added to the discussion two sources that seem to show that, in at least two cities (Pelotas, a medium sized city in Rio Grande do Sul, and São Paulo, Brazil's biggest city and "economic capital"), things happen in a different way: in both, the same group of people are seen as "whiter" by survey interviewers than by themselves. Of course, this is going to get no response. No attempt to focus the discussion will get any response. And by this method of stonewalling, the article is being kept in its present version, that says that White Brazilians are those with European ancestry, and that ancestry is irrelevant to racial classification in Brazil.
Now, I am pretty aware that if the actual reasoning about race in Brazil is incoherent or self-contradictory, all the incoheret should be described, if possible. But this then should take a format somewhat like this:
And not, like it is done at the present moment, using a different definition in different sections or paragraphs of the article, without discussing the definitions and without even realising that different definitions are being used. Ninguém ( talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The rules are defective and their implementation is defective. But I don't think that bullying is systematically rewarded.
I continue to hope that more disinterested, levelheaded, openminded people will visit that talk page and see what has happened and what is going on. The more dramatic the conversation elsewhere about that talk page, the less these people will want to take a look at it: as you must know, even at the best of times it's hard to get sane, educated people interested in matters of "race". Please avoid the appearance of additional drama. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I have requested that due to you involvement that you do not take anymore admin actions there, there are plenty of admins that are not involved if they decide to unprotect then fine, but please don't do it yourself. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:White Brazilian. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that my actions should be discussed, in quite a negative way on talkpages in Portuguese, I have requested that they stop and use English but it has continued, if in the future these comments are required for discussion or report it will be very hard to use them, I thought that this was generally the correct language to use here on the EN wiki, please comment. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, pish posh. It's too early in the morning to alphabetize correctly. freshacconci talktalk 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Hoary. I'll stick around, though I'll not contribute directly to the "white Brazilian" topic. The topic itself bothers me too much, to be sincere. I'll let others do that. I appreciate your administration, and I am sorry for some of the things that I have said. As far as I have seen now, unfortunately Opin is Brazilian indeed, and I was very wrong about that. Cheers Grenzer22 ( talk) 10:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My first edit as a free man should be to thank you for all your words on my behalf. I believe the last words I left on your talkpage were in sarcastic anger over your refusal to block another editor over the use of a racial epithet, letting him get by with a "First strike" warning. It would be much better for Wikipedia if more Admins had even a fraction of your integrity. Take care, and best regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to fill you in on the aftermath of my village stoning: The ruling class has gone back to using Wikipedia as an online Lord of the Flies simulation game (didn't one of them say "Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!" in the block review?) , and I'm back to destroying the project by churning out this kind of crap: Rumi Tama... Ever wonder if Jimbo thinks about how WP's resources are being put to use? Am I wrong, or could every talk page, every project, guideline and policy, every AfD, everything out of the mainspace be deleted with zero harm to the "Encyclopedia?" Or is my perspective warped from inhaling dust from books, and over-use of <ref> tags? Dekkappai ( talk) 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Not bad, not bad at all... I've always preferred something nice & soft & comfy & ぽっちゃり. (ddungddungi they call them in Korean). Built for comfort, not for speed. My taste is in the minority, especially in the Asian models, but I'm happily eccentric ;) ... Yeah, I know I can ham it up pretty good myself, though, obviously, I'm a very low-profile bit-player in the world of Wiki-drama. The drama-out last year forced me to stick to producing a lot of... uh, crap... and I'm thinking about finally delving into mainstream Japanese cinema this time... You did get my email? Dekkappai ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Careful! Trolls are hungry and if you feed them too much, they'll want more and more! That's even more true when such troll says that "But this is the minority, because Brazilians in general do not care about race or other people's skin color or ancestry. Not an interesting subject for Brazilians" when he had clearly said just a few lines before that "in Brazil a drop of European blood makes a person White. Both are racist societies". If the society is racist, that means that the race subject it's important to it. Of course, that troll is quite known for getting too much into contradiction and fabricating sources (when he gives any!) to prove his point. Now you know why I think it's a waste of time to discuss the thread. The final objective is only one as the same troll wrote that "The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it". In sum: don't change what belongs to someone else. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I had the same thought. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I confess that I am at a loss on what to do next in White Brazilian. Off2riorob seems to have withdrawn his objections, the other editors involved (you, Lecen, Grenzer22, Dwarf Kirlston) seem to agree with the changes that were reversed. What should be done now? Ninguém ( talk) 10:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, very, very much! Ninguém ( talk) 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
While I do not agree with this revision, as I see anything DC is doing as clear digging up of drama, I will respect it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Black is a color or an adjective. Unless used in the title of a book or movie it is not a proper noun and therefor should not be capitalized. — ASPENSTI— TALK— CONTRIBUTIONS 23:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You removed a link from Preposition and postposition. The link ( [73]) dealt with ending a sentence with a preposition, which I found useful. You mentioned Pullum et al, but they are only listed as a reference, not linked. I am a grammar layman, which is perhaps why I found the link useful! Wikipeterproject ( talk) 19:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The link dealt with an apocryphal story about how Churchill allegedly made fun of a prohibition on "ending a sentence with a preposition". No evidence has ever been adduced for the claim that Churchill did this, and there's good evidence that he didn't. Assuredly somebody did say it, at least as early as 1942. Putting aside the question of who said it, and taking "preposition" to have the meaning accepted in the 1940s by linguists and the man on the Clapham omnibus, it does not demonstrate what it's claimed to demonstrate. (Yes, this prescriptivist prohibition of preposition stranding was asinine, but the sentence attributed to Churchill doesn't show this.) All in all the story that Churchill said this, combined with the inference commonly drawn from it, would belong in some English-language dictionary of received ideas (a successor to Henry Root's World of Knowledge, which I warmly recommend), but it deserves only a small, inconspicuous place in something purporting to be a general encyclopedia rather than an encyclopedia of misinformation.
I've fixed the references to it in both Hypercorrection and List of linguistic example sentences. I believe that it would be inexcusably trivial and redundant in either Preposition and postposition or Preposition stranding; neither now mentions it.
I did no more than glance at the remainder of these articles. The impression I got was that two or more of them were mostly junk. One problem is that most people who have a moderate interest in grammar use grammar books, however recently published, that merely recycle what the grammar books of the preceding generation said, and that these in turn merely recycled what their own predecessors said. The dictionaries too recycle these myths.
If you're a grammar layman and have some spare money lying around, forgo your next pair of overpriced sneakers or your next gaudy wristwatch, and instead buy a copy of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language ( ISBN 0-521-43146-8). If you don't have the money, instead buy a copy of the same authors' very much shorter and cheaper but yet excellent A Student's Introduction to English Grammar ( ISBN 0-521-61288-8). Come to think of it, I'd recommend the latter even if you can also buy the former: it has excellent exercises that go to show that even descriptive linguistics requires hard thinking. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The article Brazil has several issues, the main one is the fact that it's simply huge and overly detailed. In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and taking as model other Featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru as I explained in here. As I made the changes, I explained carefully why and where I made them such as in here.
However, editor Rahlgd reverted all with no explanation at all as it can be seen in here. He is the only one who can edit the article without being reverted. Just see the history log in it. Also, this is not the first time he reverts an edit.
His behavior is clearly ownership. Please, help us. -- Lecen ( talk) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it going? Another rewrite? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this article to User:Nihonjoe/Daiko Group to allow more time to find reliable sources. I'm positive that a company that's this large has to have some other references in magazines or newspapers which do not have online archives. If you can look around, call or email the company to ask if they have a list of any such articles, etc., that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
John Asfukzenski ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — he's gotta be kidding, right? I mean "Ass-fucks-inski"? Surely he could be permablocked on the username alone? ► RATEL ◄ 07:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Basket of Puppies 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for your contributions. It was an outburst after I realized that Opinoso (a foreigner) has been controlling Brazilian related themes at wikipedia, and he has bullied Brazilians (check the history of his posts, some are contributive, but in most cases he bullies Brazilian posters). Opinoso claims to be Brazilian, but he is not, he is definitely a liar. As for the "lier" instead of "liar" I apologize.
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by WielandDerSchmitzFreiheit ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm only messaging you because you currently seem to be active :) Could you please take care of the speedy on Holtby please so I can move the page back? Thank you :) Jeni ( talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Are you doing OK? Please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Leave the Welsh placenames until you get agreement to add them. Any other addition will be regarded as vandalism. Skinmeister ( talk) 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[Non] conversation closed. (Anyone wanting earlier and later messages should see here.) -- Hoary ( talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If his work generally can't be described as photojournalism, then he shouldn't have been in "photojournalists" in the first place. If "photographers" is more appropriate and accurate, then he can certainly be in that one instead — but it's not necessary or desirable for a person to be in both categories at the same time. I'd note, however, that the article's lead paragraph describes him as essentially the father of photojournalism. Bearcat ( talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a bit confused by your actions at this article. It would seem that you are engaging in the edit war, [1] but also using your admin tools to then protect the article on your version. [2] Your comments on the talkpage also seem uncivil, as you are repeatedly referring to "boneheadedness". [3] [4] Is it possible that you are too close to the situation to be using admin tools? Or am I missing something? -- El on ka 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
for this block. I have grown SO tired of Mary Surratt dancing her way into our dreams and that pathetic little addition detailing her hanging. The only edits I tend to see at that article is that. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hoary! The blocked user Magyar nem ember, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magyar_nem_ember contribs) who made the disruptive edits at article Hedvig Malina returned as IP user: 195.30.17.81 and user:78.99.230.65. Please check this edit, and his contributions and compare them with user:78.99.230.65's edits, (his contributions).-- B@xter 9 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hoary do you find usernames like "Jews are not human" "Blacks are not human" and analogous usernames acceptable? Do you think a person with that type of attitude should be editing wikipedia under any account or circumstance? Do you find such name as prima facie evidence of it's user being a fascist editor, or do you view it as something not to worry about? Please answer these questions. Hobartimus ( talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A problem with a translation of a few words could be solved very easily and in multiple ways. If you visit this link [5] you see a bunch of irrelevant text and this "If your Hungarian is poor, you can leave us a message in English [ [6]]." the word "here" points to a place in the Hungarian wikipedia where there are hundreds of users who could help in translating two words ("nem" and "ember") as Magyar is already available in our own wiki. Or you can request the translation of the whole "sentence". Or alternatively you can use google translate to find out the meaning of these two words "nem" [7] and "ember" [8]. Hope that helped the issue. Hobartimus ( talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, "that film" has re-appeared in Marilyn Monroe. I've left comments on the talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to ask, "Being silly" is a real reason to block some one now? Now I don't question that s/he had it coming, but being silly, really? By the by, very quick, was it reported at WP:AIV or did you just notice it in the RCs? Rgood erm ote 08:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, talk about arrogance. Not only did you not want to answer his simple inquiry you called him an attention seeking moron in return. I understand there is no rigor in Wikipedia's administrator recruit policies but come on, it's as if you're trying to fit the definition by being a carefree asshole. Ytny 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so you thought he wasn't being serious when he vandalized the article, hence the suffix "being silly". That was a bit hard for me to comprehend with all of the pretentious synonyms and weird syntax used in your response, but I managed to figure out what you were trying to tell me so no biggy. Ytny 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMMORTAL SAMURAI ( talk • contribs)
I've re-nominated her for deletion. Pisomojado ( talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You blocked this user because of his multiple accounts in WIkipedia. The user is back as User:Grenzer22, with another sock poppet. Notice that both accounts are the same person because they speak the same things: [9] [10]. Opinoso ( talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please investigate this case ?. It seems to be another user with a sock puppet. Opinoso ( talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen your name in the history and discussions of photography-related articles. Could you tell me what you think of this article? I started it after reading a news story about the discovery of her photos. They seem to have created a buzz in the blogosphere, but there are few mainstream media sources so far and I found myself dependent on the blog of the discoverer Maloof for some facts. See my argument here. The question is whether it was premature to start this article in the first place? Perhaps it would be better to delete it for now and wait for some more substantial publication to appear? -- Hegvald ( talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hoary. I was wondering if you could clear some doubts that I have, please. There is an user called Opinoso in the article Brazil who is causing trouble. Here goes a summary about him:
I must confess to you that I do not know what to do with him anymore. What should I do? - -- Lecen ( talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly upset by a lot of factors. For now, let's consider two of them.
First, you claim that Opinoso has misdescribed the content of a book by Darcy Ribeiro -- that in various places O claims that DR has written one thing whereas DR wrote something substantially different or remained silent on the subject. For this charge to stick, you have to do two things. (i) You must demand just where or how DR wrote what he's alleged to have written. DR's book appears here and in the following pages. If something is contentious, ask for the Portuguese-language phrase or sentence, so that it can be found. (ii) We have to find a neutral person who can read Portuguese in order to judge. Portuguese people of course qualify. (Don't look for them; I can try to do so.)
Secondly, you have elsewhere claimed that DR's book, even when correctly understood, is a piece of communist/Marxist propaganda with strong messages of racial hatred.[...] Now, I happen to think that some communists and Marxists can and do write excellent history books and I'm untroubled by part of your longer description of the book. However, I'm also troubled by part. Should DR's book (when represented fairly and accurately) be taken as scrupulous, reliable or fairhanded? Clearly you have one view on this and O has another. Deservedly or otherwise, obviously DR was a prominent writer. I'd have thought that the value of his writing would have received intelligent academic commentary by now. Can you cite some? -- Hoary ( talk) 10:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Above, you write officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only: Pardo. But here, after some reformatting and a lot of abridging, is what I read at Pardo:
In Brazil, Pardo is a racial classification used in the official census by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in censuses since 1950. The word is Portuguese for "brown" or "grey-brown". The other classifications are branco (" White"), negro (" Black"), amarelo ("yellow", meaning East Asians), and indígena ("indigenous", meaning Amerindians). ...
According to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), Pardo is a broad classification that encompasses Brazilians of mixed race ancestry, mulattos, and assimilated indigenous people (" caboclos"). ...
The Brazilian census is based on self-classification, then any person can claim to be Pardo. ...
Races are molded in accordance with perceptions and ideologies prevalent in each historical moment. In the 20th century, a significant part of Brazilians who used to self-report to be Black in earlier censuses chose to move to the Pardo category. A smaller but also significant part of the population that used to self-report to be White also chose to move to the Pardo category. Magnoli describes this phenomenon as the "pardização" (pardization) of Brazil. ...
Unofficially, Brazilians also use a racial classification of " moreno", a word that also means "brown". In a 1995 survey, 32% of the population self-identified as "moreno", with a further 6% self-identifying as "moreno claro" ("light brown"), and 7% self-identified as "pardo". Telles describes both classifications as "biologically invalid", but sociologically significant. ...As that's Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source. But for what it's worth I understand it as meaning that people are whichever they say they are among the options of branco, negro, amarelo, indígena and pardo. If so, people are free to fantasize (cf the character " Ali G") or even to misrepresent what they believe; but putting aside those extreme possibilities, somebody who would be commonly regarded to be mixture of θ and φ -- where θ and φ are any two of branco, negro, amarelo, and indígena -- would be entirely free to call himself θ or φ or pardo. I see no hint of anyone putting anyone in any category, and don't know what you mean by officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only unless it's merely there are no categories "Cabloco" or "Mulatto" in the census and it's assumed that such people will call themselves "Pardo".
Is there any pressing reason to go beyond self-reporting when analyzing the "race" of Brazilians? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
All of your quotations are from a single source. I've no reason to think that this encyclopedia was not edited intelligently or fairly, given what was known at the time. However, not only ideas on "race" but also knowledge of pigmentation have changed. I quote an admittedly brief remark in Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (Harper Perennial paperback, p.229):
If true, this makes one's skin color a very different matter from the average skin color of, say, one's 256 great×6 grandparents. So we can talk about either ancestors or color if we want to, but we'd be unwise to mix up talk about both.
Does this newer edition of Enciclopédia Barsa use the same language?
This is congruent with what Goldacre writes, and looks like the kind of thing that articles here should be based on, though they should not be based directly on such papers but instead based on academic works that aggregate or review these papers. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:
Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ( [11] [12]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:
This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ( [13] [14]), Sparks1979 ( [15] [16]) and Felipe Menegaz ( [17]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ( [18]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ( [19]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ( [20]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”( [21] [22] [23]) if not “racists” ( [24] [25]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ( [26]).
Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? -- Lecen ( talk) 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to find the facts here.
You say above:
If this is not just your personal theory, let's have some references for it. Please answer on the Talk:Pardo, which is on my watchlist. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, you left this message in my Talk Page:
This may have been intended to Lecen, since I don't think I mentioned you or Gwen Gale.
Anyway, I have to agree with Lecen regarding the problems in Brazil. In fact, I have pointed those problems (though in other articles, White Brazilian and German Brazilian specifically) before Lecen became involved in the article. There is an enormous difficulty here, because content and behavioural issues get mixed. When behaviour problems are pointed, they tend to be dismissed as "content disputes". When content problems are raised, it is recommended to find a third opinion. But a third opinion is very difficult to find, due to the behaviour problems (Brazilian editors have been chased away from articles on Brazil, particularly on Brazilian ethnicity and demography, by the behaviour Lecen has described above). So we have a vicious circle; we cannot solve behaviour problems, because they are content problems. And we cannot solve content problems, because they are caused by behaviour problems...
There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Brazil. In short, Opinoso wants to edit the page ("Yes, the article may be unblocked and the unreal Caboclo majority informations you added, which are not even cited in Barsa, will be erased.") to remove this part:
He argues by quoting that:
According to him, this is by the IBGE. But, unhappily, the link he gives as a source ( [32]) is not by the IBGE; it is a newspaper report about a publication that should have been issued in May 13th, 2008, but that I can't find in the internet.
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about that. The IBGE counts Blacks ("pretos") and "pardos" separately. But other government agencies - notedly the Secretaria de Promoção da Igualdade Racial - sum the "preto" and "pardo" percents for practical purposes (which makes sence, since the "parda" population is subject to the same problems regarding racism and discrimination as the Blacks). This is then conflated into the notion that all "pardos" are Blacks, and therefore have African ancestry. It is by this reasoning - and in no other way - that it is possible to come to the conclusion that 85% of the population of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, or Piauí, is Black.
All bibliographic sources available (this includes Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro) point in a different direction: that the majority of the population in the Northern Region (where Amazonas, Pará and Amapá are located) is mainly of Euro-Amerindian descent, and even that the majority of the population of the Northeastern hinterland ("Sertão") has such characteristic.
When confronted with this, Opinoso opts out by making generic statements of the kind "all human beings are of African ancestry". Besides, of course, of accusing Lecen of using "personal theories", even "fake theories", and even more of course, posting this gem:
(This, of course, is a personal attack; and I find it very weird that while I am forbidden from "commenting on other editors", this individual gets along with this bald-faced lie. If you can do something to put an end to this situation, I would appreciate it very much.)
And to complement it, Opinoso states that the word "caboclo" makes no sence, and isn't used by Brazilians. Though, of course, it is much used by Darcy Ribeiro, who even has a whole chapter about "O Brasil Caboclo"... Ninguém ( talk) 17:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Ninguém, I was primarily writing to Lecen and not to you. But I was well aware that I was doing so on your talk page, and that you'd read it. In fact, I was hoping that you'd read it.
I can agree with much of what you write above, and find some of the other things you say above plausible. Again, I am most dissatisfied with the fact that articles on these subjects turn into battlegrounds, and am prepared to take drastic measures when I know that these are right and that they will stick. On the other hand I will not be swayed by the fact (if it is a fact; I haven't counted) that there's only one of him and six of you: unpopularity is not an offense.
I'm disappointed that Lecen doesn't seem to have responded to the section above on this page, in which I quote Goldacre. I've a hunch that a lot of the confusion results from lack of clarity and lack of scrupulousness over meanings. An imagined example: pardo may have meant both "brown [skinned]" and "multiracial" when it was assumed, or even sincerely believed, that brown skin and mixed ancestry meant the same thing. Now, however, it's known to geneticists that they do not mean the same thing, and this knowledge is starting to percolate elsewhere. Pardo may mean one thing to one scholar and another thing to another; a third scholar opposes its use because of its conflation of two factors that should not be conflated; a fourth uses it as a handy shortcut for what she asserts is a long-lasting misunderstanding; a fifth campaigns against it for ideological reasons that may color, but do not degrade her scholarly work. Meanwhile, the census merely presents it as a label, not (at that place, anyway) attempting to explain what it means by the label; the census bureau perhaps regrets the fact that it did previously explain what it meant by the term. Etc etc. All pure inventions on my part, but I guess there's something to it. So if there's a presentation of one source in which pardo does indisputably have this or that single meaning, I do not want this accompanied by anything that looks like a gleeful "So you see, he was wrong and I was right." I want to see willingness that the one citation, no matter how authoritative, may not be the whole story.
Incidentally I shall be very busy for about a week starting right now. I'll look sympathetically at helpful comments and also at diffs showing new misconduct; I'll probably not read essays (however justified) and I shan't be posting any comment as long as this one. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I made a stupid mistake there. I'm sorry for that, and for wasting your time writing this additional explanation for me.
Now let's look at the sources:
Geografia do Brasil, written by Marcos Amorim Coelho and published in 1996 (4th edition).
Panorama geográfico do Brasil, written by Melhem Adas and published in 1983 (1st edition).
O Brasil e suas regiões, written by Aroldo Azevedo and published in 1971.
Enciclopédia Barsa, written by various and published in 1987 in 16 volumes.
So this is the newspaper article. It's short and apparently unsigned. Portuguese is so close to French that I have the very flattering illusion that I can understand at least part of it: On the day that Brazil commemorates the 120th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, Seppir and IBGE present a map of the spatial distribution of the Black population. If I am right, then where is the map?
Uh, it's right here, I think. I see a map that's 9.4MB. I am not going to make yet more of a fool of myself by attempting to interpret it, but I'll make a wild guess that what it says is that there exist small (by Brazilian standards!) areas where such-and-such goes up to 85%. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The map shows the distribution of the "parda" and "preta" populations added up. As I pointed elsewhere, this may make sence to the SEPPIR, which is interested in the policy aspects of such distribution (quotas and other affirmative action). But it does not implies, contrary to what was suggested in the Talk Page, that the IBGE "counts" "pardos" as Blacks.
At this moment, it is quite clear that Blacks are by no means a majority in the Northern Region. Even Opinoso's sources point exactly to the contrary. Things are more complex in the Northeast, because the region is not homogeneous - the litoral has relied heavily on slavery on the past, especially the litoral of Bahia, Alagoas and Pernambuco, as well as of Maranhão. The hinterland - and possibly the litoral of Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte and Ceará - was not, because its predominant economic activity, husbandry, does not fit well with slavery. This is not to say that there was absolutely no slavery in this subregion, or that there aren't Blacks and "pardos" that are of African descent, of course.
Another thing is that the economy of the Northeast - including the slavery-based regions around Salvador and Recife - underwent a serious crisis before the abolition of slavery, and Northeastern slaveholders sold huge numbers of slaves to the more prosperous Southeast - this may have had some impact in the "racial" composition of the Northeast. Ninguém ( talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would propose this:
The divide between the Caboclo and Mulatto areas does not follow the borders between the states; rather, in each state, there is a gradient, from a litoranean area (particularly around the biggest cities such as Salvador and Recife), where there is a strong predominance of Mulattos, to the dry areas of the Sertão, where commercial crops like sugarcane or cocoa were not viable and extensive husbandry was the main economic activity, and where a population of Caboclos predominate. Ninguém ( talk) 11:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to establish a double standard. Some editors have to be very careful, write very carefully, source very carefully and cite very carefully. Others can just lie, misinterpret and distort sources, hurl insults around, and generally own articles without consequence. Ninguém ( talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (something he has already been warned several times not to do). Also a "blind reversal": [33].
Edit warring, blind reversal: [34].
Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [35], but the source is here: [36]. Article ownership.
Edit warring. Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [37]. Article ownership.
Edit warring, article ownership: [38].
Sheer article ownership: [39].
Edit warring, article ownership, summary edit states "This IS NOT the place to post texts from geneticists to claim a point o view": [40].
Edit warring, blind reversal (reintroducing grammatical mistake), summary edit includes "Do not destroy articles, please": [41].
Edit warring: [42].
Although the reverted edit is sourced, summary edit says "Removing personal criticism about American racial classification, This opinion is not neutral.": [43].
Gaming the system to keep false information in Wikipedia (summary edit states, "Removing unsourced. Brazilian census does not make any differenciation about racial mixture. If Caboclos are counted as Pardos, they're officialy counted as Afro-Brazilian."): [44].
Summary edit says, "Restoring old version of it because of its new unsourced racialist informations". But there is nothing "racialist" in the reverted edit: [45]
Edit warring: [46].
Article ownership: [47].
Attributing dishonest motives ("trying to sell") to other editors: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].
Edit warring: [53], [54], [55].
Attributing dishonest motives ("Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason") to other editors: [56].
Attributing dishonest motives to other editors: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Ninguém ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
From the last 48h: [63]. Notice this: "Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European, they don't." Nobody ever is simply mistaken or wrong; people who disagree with Opinoso are always acting in bad faith, "hiding" something, or "selling" ideas. Ninguém ( talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I created another section, because the old one is too big and hard to follow. I hope you don't mind. You had told me that in case the view towards ethnics groups had changed since the most recent book I used as source and someone else used it, it would blow away everything I said. It is true, I agre on that. So, I got the most recent edition of Panorama geográfico do Brasil (Geographic Panorama of Brazil, 456 pages) written by Melhem Adas published in 2004 and it is on its 4th edition (the one I used before was the 1st edition published in 1983). On page 268 there is the exact same picture that there was in the first edition on page 103:
The official website of the book is this one. However, you still did not explain to us how we would end the present dispute. The article can not be edited and even if it was, Opinoso would probably revert it or do something similar. Don't you think it would be better if you write something in the talk page? P.S.: The sole sub-ethnic group not found in the picture in Melhem Adas both books is the Juçara, because it is a very rare crossbreed and appears mainly in Maranhão. However, it is mentioned on Aroldo Azevedo and Igor A. G. Moreira works. P.S.2: Melhem Adas book is used in high schools in Brazil. -- Lecen ( talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, the article Brazil was unblocked today. Several editors (Hentzer, Debresser, Marek69, Elockid, etc...) has already made edits in it. One of them, Hentzer, even removed the dubious tags added by Opinoso. I don't know if that was precipated, but since the other editors were warned by me about the ongoing discussion and did not participate into it and have already made changes today, I will asssume they won't be part of it anyway. As the "score" is 4 x 1, I don't think what Hentzer did should be considered wrong, but that's my guess.
Anyway, that is not the reason I am writing to you. An unknown editor has changed the "mixed-race" info in the demographics section for "brown". [64]. I reverted it explaining the reason. [65]. Next he reverted what I did. [66] I will not lose my time reverting it a second time, however.
This unknown editor has no previously contribution in wikipedia. Check his log. [67]
I don't know if he is someone's suckpuppet, as this same someone is blocked until tomorrow. But I know that what he is doing is not right. Brazilian schoolars calls the multiethnic Brazilians "mestiços", that in a direct translation to English it would mean "Mixed one", or more precisely, "Mixed-race". The IBGE, however, calls it "Pardo". In plain English it means "brown". And IBGE does calls it "brown" in its reports written in English. However, in English, a person who is brown is someone who is descendant of white and black, such as U.S. President Barack Obama. And as you you are probably tired of hearing, the Brazilian mixed-race category (or Pardo) has descendants of whites and Japanese, whites and Indians, and also whites and blacks. So, to avoid confusion, it was written "mixed-race" in the text, as Brazilian schoolars calls it, and "Pardo", as IBGE names it. What should it be done about it? I am quite sure that if I revert it this unknown editor will do it again. And opening a discussion to deal with an unknown editor is not worth it. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Thomas McElwain, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McElwain (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bejinhan Talk 09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
You posted on Wikiproject Hungary some months ago (21 April 2009) about this article. At that time I had little interest in it. Since then, I have edited a few Hungarian articles where its name comes up.
the missus and I have discussed this, she is native Hungarian (I am English) and settled that really we think the name should be used as it would make sense to an English audience, so that Bratislava is the right term to use for that reason. Of course, in the Hungarian articles we then put the Hungarian afterwards. We might take the opposite tack if e.g. on a historical Hungarian article it would in our eyes make more sense to put the Hungarian first, but in any case we will put both, and say which languages they are (using {{
lang-hu}}
, {{
lang-ro}}
etc). Does that seem to make sense to you? It seems pointless to me to change the article's name, I agree it would be edit warring and I think as far as I know in English it is generally called Bratislava, that is what it should be called. There are similar edit wars with a lot of Croatian articles too, that used to be part of the Kingdom of Hungary. While I accept national sentiments can run high, if the historical context means to use the Hungarian name that should be used, and if it is the modern name, that should be used, cross refering to the other name. Would you agree?
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 07:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay... only today, after three and a half years without correction, did I notice (and revise) this phrase in the Felice Beato article: Photographs of the 19th century often now shows the limitations of the technology used... But who perpetrated this subject-verb disagreement? :~) Pinkville ( talk) 20:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm off out of here. You're an editor I'll remember fondly. So long! -- Paularblaster ( talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeing your notes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diactic, I'm thinking you may also be interested in these edits to Actant and Implied Author, though only the latter brings Mr Sumioka into the article. Clear the articles ain't, though I reckon separating wheat from chaff would be awkward. AllyD ( talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Interested in the deletion of the link to http://ugg-advice.weebly.com which (although provided by Weebly) supports much of the content of the main UGG® article by promoting the brand name and values and warns consumers away from fakes and fake retailers. I also added why it was added to the discussion section of the site. I created http://ugg-advice.weebly.com as a warning to others after myself falling foul to a fake retailer, and didn't want anyone else to make the same mistake. I make the presumption that many visitors to the UGG® article on Wikipedia may be looking for help and advice on finding the real deal.
http://ugg-advice.weebly.com isn't monetised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 ( talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
See the reply on my talkpage. Best, Athenean ( talk) 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
Thank you, Hoary. I hope I have actually improved the lead section of that article. The former version, with its circular and mistaken definition of "White Brazilian", bothered me no end.
I have tried to reformat the references, but I don't think with much success; I managed to include a summary (not exactly a title, but in this case a title would be misleading, for, as the tables are generated by ignoring some of the variables available that are irrelevant in the context - for instance, sex -, more would be promised in the actual title than delivered in the resulting table), but what you called, somewhat generously, "blahblahblah" is still there.
I am sorry that I can't help you with Greek, more than suggesting that the translitteration of "Φωτογραφίες" should be either "photographies" or "fotografies". My knowledge of Greek is null, or rather limited to half a dozen words and a rusty knowledge of the phonetic value of the alphabet. Ninguém ( talk) 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent photographs... I didn't know João Pina, but he obviously knows what to do with a camera.
Two small observations: first, "Polícia Militar" shouldn't be translated as "military police" (that would be "Polícia do Exército"). The Polícias Militares are armed and have a military hierarchy, with soldiers, sargeants, captains, etc., but on the contrary of the American "Military Police", they are not linked to the Army. Instead, they are state-level police organisations, under the command of state governors. Second, the game the drug dealer is playing is known in English as "table football", but in Brazil "futebol de mesa" (table football) is this quite different (and much more fun) game:
[69] Ninguém ( talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the midia... it makes us either apocalyptical or integrated.
But don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about The Guardian. Just pointing out an explanation about the structure of Brazilian Police, and - which is much nicer - about a popular indoor game in Brazil (about this one, they - The Guardian - aren't even wrong, after all).
I have done some further cleansing in White Brazilian. There are still some references to include, but this will have to wait, at least until tomorrow. And then I am going to "be bold" and completely remove the sections about Portuguese/Italians/Germans/et caterva, that turn the article into a piece about immigration instead of "White Brazilians". Ninguém ( talk) 02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your position and agree that the best way in this case is to order at internet. I will try to name some mail order bookstores, and briefly describe the topic of the books there, which are available and in English only. I hope this will help you a little. See below:
Kindly note that the prices are discounted but include 18% VAT, which should be exempted for export. Please don't hesitate to contact me for any other detail. Cheers. CeeGee ( talk) 09:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoary.
I am impressed to the request to justify things without even being notified of what are the things that should be justified.
But I am trying to stay cool. Not that it is easy, though. Ninguém ( talk) 02:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
And now... [70] Ninguém ( talk) 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, what future do you see for the discussion on the Talk Page, given that Opinoso has declared that he is too busy to discuss, and Off2riorob has up to the moment not stated any substantive objection to the changes I made? Is this going to be a repetition of the previous fiasco, in which I become the only person who has responsibilities toward the content of the article, while the others ignore all discussion but get to keep the article phrased in the way they propose? If you look again what happened there, you will see that your initial position - that Off2riorob's reversal should be discussed, that the burden of proof was on him - is already gone. It is up to me, now, to justify the changes I made, but this is going to be very difficult to do if the other editors don't clarify what they think is wrong with them. Ninguém ( talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hoary, You asked me to look up a Turkish interview about Nikos Economopoulos.
The interview (2006 by Özge Bayram) is about his exibition held in Pamukbank art gallery, İstanbul. Pamukbank was a former bank in Turkey (later on merged with Yapı Kredi Bank) Most banks in Turkey have their art galleries. They consider this as a public service ( and of course a type of advertisement.) The photos exibited are the same photos he had exibited in an Athens exibition of 1999 "100 photos in 20 years." Some interesting notes are as follows.
I hope this much is helpful to you. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 10:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Your guesses are right. I'll add the following:
I've over summerized his talk about the origin of Constantine Monos. Actually Nikos says " ...an America photographer whose family had moved from Anatolia to South Carolina "
You can easily translate the name of the article ." On the Balkans, paradox and photojournalism." You are right about the three authors. The guess is not stupid, just the reverse. Geniş Açı (English: Wide angle) seems to be the name of a magazine of photography published between 1996-2006. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, you can reach links to Ipektsi Award for peace and friendship between Greek and Turkish people over Yahoo search engine. But if you use the name İpekçi instead of Ipektsi (Ç is a Turkish letter) you'll find even more links. (Capital İ and ç are Turkish letters, you can copy and paste them.) Have a good time. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hoarey, I see you have protected the branco article, I would dispute that protection was needed, and if you are to preform administrator actions on an article that you should not be involved, also could you please clarify the status of your involvement as regards the article, I notice you have never edited the article but you have commented on the talkpage, I also noticed that when I reverted to the original article position that your were one of the two people that user ninguen immediately deemed to notify. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I know you requested to stop looking after articles that involve Brazil and all that. However, after some time translating, I managed to transcribe a chapter of a book about the Brazilian people that might interest you. The book was released this year, and take in account the most recent studies on the matter. Take a look, you will enjoy. You always said that it was sad that you did not know much about the subject. Now you will, but you will not be surprised.
Source: Narloch, Leandro. Guia politicamente incorreto da história do Brasil. São Paulo: Leya, 2009, pp.39-45 ISBN: 978-85-62936-06-7
My comments:
Thank you for the text above, which is indeed interesting. However, I note that it's from a book titled Guia politicamente incorreto da história do Brasil. I imagine that politicamente incorreto is a calque on "politically incorrect". Perhaps its meaning has diverged, but in English "politically incorrect" tends to be used in book titles as a label that the content unashamedly expounds ideas that are anathema not only to people on the left but also to people who are well-informed by recent, apolitical theory or research. So in English a "politically incorrect guide" to the history of XYZ tends to mean an uninformed guide to that history, produced by an ignoramus or charlatan, and likely to be touted by the windbags of "talk radio".
I shan't go through each of your points but will say that "race", as it's generally used, is indeed a social construct. (Earlier, I found an excellent source for this and I can find more if requested.) On the other hand "race" can have different meanings besides. If, or so far as, the article uses a different meaning, it should explain forthrightly that its discussion of "white people" or whatever is not about "white people" as the term is generally understood.
You have a long-running dispute with an editor that you say you despise. Of course you're within your right to despise anyone and anything, but expressing this is very unlikely to be helpful. If you have clear evidence of misconduct within the last 48 hours, you're free to bring it up at WP:AN/I or a more appropriate place, rather than to a particular admin. If you want to bring up long-term problems, then see this, but read it very carefully; I warn you that the process will take a lot of time and care and may well not be worth the effort or even backfire. Whatever measure you take, and however fairly and scrupulously you do it, your opponents are likely to quote back at you any earlier declaration that you despise the user in question. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I see that (partially by my fault) the discussion on the Talk Page has somewhat degenerated into a discussion about Ronaldo. On one hand, I think this exemplifies the extremely simplistic approach that prevails in all articles about Brazilian demography: Brazilians lie about their own race, White Brazilians are fake Whites, and Ronaldo is the living proof of that, because he is "pardo", ie, Black, but has publicly said he is White. On the other hand, it is turning the Talk Page into a general discussion, which I fear is not allowed (to common mortals, at least; Opinoso seems to belong in a different category).
I don't know if I should continue this discussion, because we are reaching a dangerous point here. Racism a la brèsilliene has a few rules; some (there are probably many more) of them seem to be:
Ronaldo broke rule #1, and, as such, opened himself to racist attacks. A few can be seen here: [72]. While the article by journalist Mirian Leitão is reasonably contained, it sparked a row of comments in the vein of, Let's send him to Alabama or mississipi state, leave him in a Redneck bar by a road, if he is welcomed, we shall find if he is really White... Brazilian racists, poor things, have few opportunity to publicly spew their hatred; they become very excited when someone makes a mistake like Ronaldo's - it is the rare and precious opportunity to make openly racist remarks under the cover of "political correctness" ("yeah, I'm calling him a nigga, but he deserves it, for being such a racial traitor...") I fear that the stream of blind hate we are seeing in the Talk Page isn't much better than this.
But I think this moves us further away from solving the problems in White Brazilian. I have added to the discussion two sources that seem to show that, in at least two cities (Pelotas, a medium sized city in Rio Grande do Sul, and São Paulo, Brazil's biggest city and "economic capital"), things happen in a different way: in both, the same group of people are seen as "whiter" by survey interviewers than by themselves. Of course, this is going to get no response. No attempt to focus the discussion will get any response. And by this method of stonewalling, the article is being kept in its present version, that says that White Brazilians are those with European ancestry, and that ancestry is irrelevant to racial classification in Brazil.
Now, I am pretty aware that if the actual reasoning about race in Brazil is incoherent or self-contradictory, all the incoheret should be described, if possible. But this then should take a format somewhat like this:
And not, like it is done at the present moment, using a different definition in different sections or paragraphs of the article, without discussing the definitions and without even realising that different definitions are being used. Ninguém ( talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The rules are defective and their implementation is defective. But I don't think that bullying is systematically rewarded.
I continue to hope that more disinterested, levelheaded, openminded people will visit that talk page and see what has happened and what is going on. The more dramatic the conversation elsewhere about that talk page, the less these people will want to take a look at it: as you must know, even at the best of times it's hard to get sane, educated people interested in matters of "race". Please avoid the appearance of additional drama. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I have requested that due to you involvement that you do not take anymore admin actions there, there are plenty of admins that are not involved if they decide to unprotect then fine, but please don't do it yourself. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:White Brazilian. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that my actions should be discussed, in quite a negative way on talkpages in Portuguese, I have requested that they stop and use English but it has continued, if in the future these comments are required for discussion or report it will be very hard to use them, I thought that this was generally the correct language to use here on the EN wiki, please comment. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, pish posh. It's too early in the morning to alphabetize correctly. freshacconci talktalk 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Hoary. I'll stick around, though I'll not contribute directly to the "white Brazilian" topic. The topic itself bothers me too much, to be sincere. I'll let others do that. I appreciate your administration, and I am sorry for some of the things that I have said. As far as I have seen now, unfortunately Opin is Brazilian indeed, and I was very wrong about that. Cheers Grenzer22 ( talk) 10:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My first edit as a free man should be to thank you for all your words on my behalf. I believe the last words I left on your talkpage were in sarcastic anger over your refusal to block another editor over the use of a racial epithet, letting him get by with a "First strike" warning. It would be much better for Wikipedia if more Admins had even a fraction of your integrity. Take care, and best regards. Dekkappai ( talk) 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to fill you in on the aftermath of my village stoning: The ruling class has gone back to using Wikipedia as an online Lord of the Flies simulation game (didn't one of them say "Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!" in the block review?) , and I'm back to destroying the project by churning out this kind of crap: Rumi Tama... Ever wonder if Jimbo thinks about how WP's resources are being put to use? Am I wrong, or could every talk page, every project, guideline and policy, every AfD, everything out of the mainspace be deleted with zero harm to the "Encyclopedia?" Or is my perspective warped from inhaling dust from books, and over-use of <ref> tags? Dekkappai ( talk) 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Not bad, not bad at all... I've always preferred something nice & soft & comfy & ぽっちゃり. (ddungddungi they call them in Korean). Built for comfort, not for speed. My taste is in the minority, especially in the Asian models, but I'm happily eccentric ;) ... Yeah, I know I can ham it up pretty good myself, though, obviously, I'm a very low-profile bit-player in the world of Wiki-drama. The drama-out last year forced me to stick to producing a lot of... uh, crap... and I'm thinking about finally delving into mainstream Japanese cinema this time... You did get my email? Dekkappai ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Careful! Trolls are hungry and if you feed them too much, they'll want more and more! That's even more true when such troll says that "But this is the minority, because Brazilians in general do not care about race or other people's skin color or ancestry. Not an interesting subject for Brazilians" when he had clearly said just a few lines before that "in Brazil a drop of European blood makes a person White. Both are racist societies". If the society is racist, that means that the race subject it's important to it. Of course, that troll is quite known for getting too much into contradiction and fabricating sources (when he gives any!) to prove his point. Now you know why I think it's a waste of time to discuss the thread. The final objective is only one as the same troll wrote that "The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it". In sum: don't change what belongs to someone else. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I had the same thought. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I confess that I am at a loss on what to do next in White Brazilian. Off2riorob seems to have withdrawn his objections, the other editors involved (you, Lecen, Grenzer22, Dwarf Kirlston) seem to agree with the changes that were reversed. What should be done now? Ninguém ( talk) 10:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, very, very much! Ninguém ( talk) 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
While I do not agree with this revision, as I see anything DC is doing as clear digging up of drama, I will respect it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Black is a color or an adjective. Unless used in the title of a book or movie it is not a proper noun and therefor should not be capitalized. — ASPENSTI— TALK— CONTRIBUTIONS 23:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You removed a link from Preposition and postposition. The link ( [73]) dealt with ending a sentence with a preposition, which I found useful. You mentioned Pullum et al, but they are only listed as a reference, not linked. I am a grammar layman, which is perhaps why I found the link useful! Wikipeterproject ( talk) 19:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The link dealt with an apocryphal story about how Churchill allegedly made fun of a prohibition on "ending a sentence with a preposition". No evidence has ever been adduced for the claim that Churchill did this, and there's good evidence that he didn't. Assuredly somebody did say it, at least as early as 1942. Putting aside the question of who said it, and taking "preposition" to have the meaning accepted in the 1940s by linguists and the man on the Clapham omnibus, it does not demonstrate what it's claimed to demonstrate. (Yes, this prescriptivist prohibition of preposition stranding was asinine, but the sentence attributed to Churchill doesn't show this.) All in all the story that Churchill said this, combined with the inference commonly drawn from it, would belong in some English-language dictionary of received ideas (a successor to Henry Root's World of Knowledge, which I warmly recommend), but it deserves only a small, inconspicuous place in something purporting to be a general encyclopedia rather than an encyclopedia of misinformation.
I've fixed the references to it in both Hypercorrection and List of linguistic example sentences. I believe that it would be inexcusably trivial and redundant in either Preposition and postposition or Preposition stranding; neither now mentions it.
I did no more than glance at the remainder of these articles. The impression I got was that two or more of them were mostly junk. One problem is that most people who have a moderate interest in grammar use grammar books, however recently published, that merely recycle what the grammar books of the preceding generation said, and that these in turn merely recycled what their own predecessors said. The dictionaries too recycle these myths.
If you're a grammar layman and have some spare money lying around, forgo your next pair of overpriced sneakers or your next gaudy wristwatch, and instead buy a copy of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language ( ISBN 0-521-43146-8). If you don't have the money, instead buy a copy of the same authors' very much shorter and cheaper but yet excellent A Student's Introduction to English Grammar ( ISBN 0-521-61288-8). Come to think of it, I'd recommend the latter even if you can also buy the former: it has excellent exercises that go to show that even descriptive linguistics requires hard thinking. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The article Brazil has several issues, the main one is the fact that it's simply huge and overly detailed. In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and taking as model other Featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru as I explained in here. As I made the changes, I explained carefully why and where I made them such as in here.
However, editor Rahlgd reverted all with no explanation at all as it can be seen in here. He is the only one who can edit the article without being reverted. Just see the history log in it. Also, this is not the first time he reverts an edit.
His behavior is clearly ownership. Please, help us. -- Lecen ( talk) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it going? Another rewrite? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this article to User:Nihonjoe/Daiko Group to allow more time to find reliable sources. I'm positive that a company that's this large has to have some other references in magazines or newspapers which do not have online archives. If you can look around, call or email the company to ask if they have a list of any such articles, etc., that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)