"There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response." Julian Assange
|
Hi. Please see the discussion on the Gothic Line and Spring 1945 offensive I have started at Talk:Italian Campaign (World War II)#Recent edits on section 5. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Cybershore. Your contribution to the Pelé page is appreciated. I've only made some language corrections in your edits, whilst trying to keep the information you brought to the article unchanged. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN ( talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 04:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Cybershore, To my opinion, mentioning the Rio conference is redundant for two reasons:
Therefore, I don't think that a non-decisive meeting of not-very-important countries deserves a separate mentioning. This sentence just distracts a reader's opinion from really important events.
Best regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you have been insisting on adding unnecessary information into the text no matter how many editors revert your edits, I've requested an administrator to deal with the matter. You should learn that in Wikipedia you should try to talk first, and discuss later if you notice that other editors are opposing your actions. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Change {{
unblock}}
to {{
unblock}}
Cybershore ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
'Refering to my block, I appeal believing that I should be unblocked due the following reasons:
Thus, I appeal not by the block itself (just 24 hrs) but by the concept, since I firmly believe due the reasons above, I did not incur in any moment in edit warring Thanks Cybershore ( talk) 05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned on Feb 24 about edits being against consensus. According to WP:BRD you do NOT simply revert a revert: you discuss. You musy also know that an edit war is not the same as 3 reverts. This block should be longer based on your previous warnings, however, I trust that you will read the links provided, and understand WP:CONSENSUS better when this block expires ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 05:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version. Do not accept 'Policy' , 'consensus', or 'procedure' as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately" ; will not be me, who will dispute.
Cybershore, I urge you to discuss with the other editors. You haven't gain any consensus previously and you must do so now. Continuing to repeat the same actions will lead to another block. Elockid ( Talk) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
1st I have exposed my arguments and no one has presented any arguments against it, including (and this is very significant) the fact that I have shown that Lecen has repeatedly lied (to be polite) about a bibliographic citation (of nr.83) , ie the author in the passage quoted from the book used as reference wrote one thing, and Lecen "freely" cites another (If you don't have the menionted book, this can be checked easily by using "Look Inside" tool in the Amazon Books' Website );
2nd no one has demonstrated, proved or even argued against in a historical or argumentative basis that what I wanted to edit was irrelevant, quite the contrary; observe the discussion (I again ask that you do so) and see that my argument has no counter- argument, even in my accusations regarding the use of double standards related to the disruptive edits
Sincerely, Cybershore ( talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"...from the Brazil talk page: 1) Again, nobody has presented any counter-argument, limiting to just stick to personal views of what it should be considered important or not, and worse, getting into the highly relative field of spelling as easy justification for scape of debate;
2) In relation to the supposed consensus, well ... No one should fear of facing groups, particularly when members of a group flatly refuse to counter-argue or deliberately choose going through the easy path of deleting, instead of improve what they criticize (spelling). Cybershore (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That's your inference about and sad again seeing that you selectively inferred, not impartially, I feel double standard here again, for example:
when you says " even though arguments are present in the talk page ", you selectively "forget" that: 1st I responded to these arguments, and then and only then and from this point, there were no more counter-arguments presented that refute my points of view presented above.
Sure, even related to these 1st initial arguments against my case, if I behave inferring freely, I might have classified them as assertions in the "Because I said so" category.
But no. I responded them, one by one. Now, I also see that you still having nothing to say about spurious quotations Cybershore ( talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, well, well, curious that in the meanwhile you've been showing very quickly in order to respond Lecen down there
And after almost one month later, alleging "technical difficulties" you simply continue to ignore the central issue: incredible that it took you that long to selectively mining a portion of the discussion "forgeting" my reply and the lack of counter-arguments coming from the other party, because
Again, I repeat: those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others, trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, accusing others of their own practice
or attempting to divert the focus of the topic discussed...
So, 1 more time ...I have no fear, shame or hesitation in my mind change if / when the facts Presented Convince me. " (01:49, 8 March 2011). Unfortunately, as far now, this doesn't seem to be the case of who has repeatedly ignored the debate and made disruptive reversals, among other things already reported (02:24, 23 April 2011)
I believe that Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those flawed or incomplete. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can be enhanced and fitted when appropriate, and not locked/closed (under the euphemism of "protected")... (03:32, 3 May 2011)
Thus, sorry but nor I, neither anybody with dignity can accept as arguments things Like "Because I said so, it is so!" "Take it or leave it".
I was very clear about the bibliographic spurious reference, the nr. 83, 3rd line in the "Early Republic" section.
Now, IF in order to Not check this, leaving behind any pretense of impartiality that you perhaps had, you prefer to bypass the step by step via Google books or amazon books suggested above, feeling more comfortable grinning nervously, claiming not to find the physical book, well... it is an ethical problem concerning to your conscience, not to my... Cybershore ( talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well,
1)My clear indications of how to locate the spurious reference in question are from the 08th of May, yours non-response or refusal, if you will, is dated on May 27... 20 days, almost one month...
2)about this spurious Quote/citation, on the article's talk page and here, (again) I pointed out:
1st its number on the article are 83, see Early Republic section, 3rd line and compare what is write there with the original Barman's book "Citizen Emperor" (used for citation), page 403.
2nd I initially thought it was just a faulty Quote, perhaps the result of a distracted reading by a hurried editor. But later, when the actual quote was systematically overlapped by simple revertions (disruptive and tendentious edits), I had no doubt of its pure and plain bad faith.
3)Related to consider a debate on Wikipedia as something to "win"or "lose" game, I think it unnecessary to have to re-paste my position about it, but obviously if it will prolonged and the same key will played repeatedly (as well as about my arguments and others things)... why not?
I remind you also that in the "Real World" (which the network environment are part, just to remember) when the question is to "win" hearts and minds, are many many examples, historical and present, to demonstrate that no dictator or group manages to maintain or impose themselves without the support or apathy of an majority.
Which also leads to remember that there are also numerous examples, from the " flat earth theory" to racism as well as medical practices that fell into disrepute, that were justified on pseudoscience, and even after being confronted by evidence still had the support of the majority for a long time ...an "wrong" minority has steadily and patiently grown to become a majority.
And I'm talking about really huge crowds, generations' beliefs, not just 3, 4 (particularly one, since the silence of others may also mean, among other things, abstention) guys' stubbornness in maintaining at any cost (as the trying to taking advantage of double standards, disruptive/tendentions editions, intimidation, offenses etc), a extensive but incomplete version for a section of an encyclopedia article, including a spurious quote, rather than let the things roll. Cybershore ( talk) 04:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I see...
Look, if an author writes something in a certain portion of a given book, and another person writes a different one, quoting his/her different phrase as if this was the original phrase contained in the book which he/she uses as a reference, changing the meaning of the original one, this is an spurious quote, mister.
The way you say, the regulation says okay if in a given article, a majority consensus, no matter how many people, seems to agree that doomsday or rapture, as described in some sects, should be interpreted literally...
But if you mean that there is no point in keep discussion with the bureaucracy here, you're right;
For now, going back to continue the debate in the clos... "protected" article, on its Talking page Cybershore ( talk) 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"What is the background information that makes it spurious? How was the meaning changed? This is my question."
Elockid,
about it there is no disput, at least in Brazil among Brazilian scholars...
Since the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.
Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government, for 1894, much before 1893's events.
Furthermore, in Brazil even among monarchists and advocates of the military regimes agree that when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes as the majors consequences of 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country), were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.
So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference (right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here) did not wrote it.
Now,
Again, I´m no nuts to wanna, neither be the "right guy" nor do the "ultimate" version of the "Early Republic" section, in "Brazil" article.
I remind one more time that: my edit of this section of March 16 (not a Great edit, not "the best edit", not a "sacred wrote in the stone" edit, just one more among many others to be constantly improved) stood there over whole month with nobody complaining (in discussion) or reversing.
Only when I noted that the paragraph had been constantly edited (again I ask that you observe the history of that article), in a way that the meaning was getting half cloudy, as you can see here (see 2.3 Early Republic, 1st paragraph), and along this month (as you can see on the history of the article), as nobody really cared to complain or edit about it, I fixed it (without an reversion) on April 21, having another person later corrected a flaw in the input of a reference;
And... was only then that this stuff started again, with a disruptive revertion, one more time, more than a month later!!! Backing to "sacred" one, with the identical spuriousness about the reference and on correlation both cited above.
But in reality, I must thank that this is happening, otherwise, I guess such details, among others, wouldn't be disclosed here prior to new edits Cybershore ( talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, definitely! Cybershore ( talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
( Elockid, ) Thanks for warning me, but Cybershore has made the discussion unbearable already. So huge are his messages that I hardly believe someone will have the patience to actually take a look and read it. Since no one will answer he will believe that that is a sign of support for him and he will add his piece of text once more (he whas been trying to do that for.. 2 years now). He didn't care before when 3 editors opposed him (and went as far to believe that 2 other editors supported him, although they didn't) and won't care now. I added myself a message there but that's all I'm going to do. But thank you for being kind on coming to me to tell about the discussion that was reopened. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I came here because I want to use this as an evidence that I had warned you about your behavior. No one has support your claims and you still revert them. If you don't stop I will have no other option than to report you at the ANI and ask for your block. -- Lecen ( talk) 15:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Brazil with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, Quinxorin ( talk) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to read WP:SCREW. Quinxorin ( talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:
Best to read over
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle before someone blocks you
Cybershore, I've blocked you for a week for your last comment at Talk:Brazil. You've been warned numerous times about personal attacks and yet you have persisted. I have tried to help you, but I'm concerned about your behavior. When your block expires, you may return to the discussion, but I strongly recommend you refrain from attacking other editors and try to be more concise with your comments. Considering your ability with the English language it would be best to try to write shorter simpler comments. -- Daniel 15:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What "additions" specifically you're talking about (so I can adjust or respond)?
Why, again this
double standard behavior related just to one part; since, I answered all the objections one by one, while the seriously and gravely accusation made up by me, and proved, repeatedly, throughout this year and a half about spurious quote remains ignored???
And Please answer this time:
1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?
2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?
Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes
mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???
3) Which group of honest editors ...who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?
Cybershore (
talk)
16:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Cybershore ( talk) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You were blocked. While blocked, you edited without logging in in order to evade the block. I therefore increased the length of your block and also blocked the IP number that you used. You are welcome to appeal against the block. (Incidentally, any administrator who thinks that the block should be shortened or ended is welcome to do so without consulting me.) Or of course you can just sit it out: after it has ended, your constructive edits will be welcome. However, further attempts to evade the block will merely get you into deeper trouble. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Obvious that I consider my block unfair.
But you know what?
Sorry, but dealing with bureaucracy appealing to its deaf ears, having to decipher and fit oneself to walls of bureaucratic text, made purposely in a confused way, doesn't seem to be a reliable option.
Cybershore (
talk)
06:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"It is not a "fake quote" it is an nuanced issue of context.
The sentence you have issues with was outside of the quote.
You may be right about the change in context changing the meaning,
"I don't have any idea"
Daniel
18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"If you genuinely think I am in the wrong you are welcome to use the unblock template and seek other opinions."
Daniel
18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
To the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful ones:
See above
The heart of this Case;
As well as the sections
Spurious Quotations,
Once Again, and sections
Warning to
Judge by yourselves II in my Talk Page;
To note that
1) from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose, no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed,
even taking into account that the present version:
1.1) incurs spurious quote in the 1st paragraph,
1.2) also have too detailed and redundant information (for an article that are supposed to be short...) on the 2nd paragraph,
and 1.3) besides be longer, are incomplete, vague and non neutral in the 3rd...
2) How not to think in double standard when:
The last disruptive revertion, besides be longer than the version I propose (2.1), was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above (again... See above points A to E in "Once Again" section ) that were related only to the 2nd paragraph (of the version I propose 2.2);
and that
2.3) No word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the 1st paragraph, as well as against or about the 3rd paragraph, that according to some editor (Ctr F on word "solid" to see above, on the discussion about grammar in the "Once Again" section), was "pretty solid"...
And even so, the revertion was done...
So, I again ask you all:
1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?
2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?
Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???
3) Which group of honest editors, ladies and gentlemen, who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?
Cybershore (
talk)
05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Right,
For the 2nd paragraph, the why (for what needs to be done), and how (suggestions) -
1st, the why:
besides the 1) excessive number of bibliographical citations in Portuguese, which I claim to be unneeded, since there is abundant literature in English dealing with the subject;
My suggestion is that (keeping the paragraph short, btw depending on the option to be chosen, even shorter), must be also fixed:
2) the truncation of the narrative, referring to fix the correlational gaps of
2.1 the beginning of the republic and the military rebellions of the 1920s, and to
2.2 the mentions about all revolts of the 1930s, and not just the communist one,
Or
- 2.2.1 - to maintain coherence, don' mention any (1930s) revolt specifically , in the manner suggested below
3) (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail. In this case, inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period
I refer specifically to this passage "The repression of the opposition was brutal with more than 20,000 people imprisoned, internment camps created for political prisoners in distant regions of the country, widespread torture by the government agents of repression, and censorship of the press.**" ;
which can be summarized as suggested (see suggestion about Point 3) below
My suggestions for How -
Regarding to:
Point 1, use the abundant literature in English dealing with the subject, as some which I used
Point 2.1, a variation of what I had proposed:
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, through various civilian and military rebellions, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt."
Or, shorter
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt."
Points 2.2, 2.2.1 and 3 (bold letters)
"Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. "
Thus (following the justifications above), one possibility of how the entire paragraph could be:
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt. Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. "
Note that, besides Not contain the defects stated above, even With the phrase "in the wake of the murder of his running mate, " - this possible version is by far a shorter paragraph than the present version.
Cybershore (
talk)
17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My suggestions and justifications related to it:
Besides the 1) above mentioned reason concerning bibliographical citations in Portuguese, my reasons and suggestions about what to fixed:
2) As in the previous paragraph (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Again, details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period
I refer specifically to this passage "Vargas then forced German, Japanese and Italian immigrants into concentration camps" .
Besides being a subject that should be detailed in specific articles, the sentence, as written, denotes another spurious correlation for 2 reasons:
1st Because it gives the impression (to those who doesn't know the topic) that all Germans, Italians and Japanese immigrants (and their descendants) were interned then in concentration camps, as what happened to the Japanese-Americans in the U.S. at those times;
2nd the own magazine article makes it very clear right from its subtitle "Hundreds of immigrants were interned in farmlands during WWII", then specifying along the article, cases regarding such imprisonments
3) Fix the two last sentences, since as they are now "Democracy was reinstated and General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president" / "...but he was incapable of either governing under a democracy or of dealing with an active opposition, and he committed suicide in 1954" ; besides being longer, incomplete, vague and non neutral, can also give rise to spurious inferences.
So, I propose that it be changed to what we agreed when we talked specifically about grammar, with the citation used then (McCann; Frank D. "Soldiers of the Patria: A History of the Brazilian Army, 1889-1937" Stanford University Press 2004,
Page 441: "The elected government over which Dutra presided from 1946 to 1951 was supported by the conservative interventionist army and not a suddenly democratic entity.
...[Then] Dutra drew a significant parallel: "Thus it was on November 15, 1889 and on October 29, 1945." To him, the overthrow of Pedro II and of Getúlio Vargas were analogous and for the same purpose - "For the greatness of Brazil" ).
Therefore, including our concordance above about changing and moving the present last sentence (concerning about the 3 only issues related to pre-Vargas Brazilian foreign policy of this 1st Republican period) of the 1st paragraph to the 3rd paragraph;
My main suggestion concerning this paragraph, is the same that we had previously agreed:
"In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of the republican period was followed by a failed attempt to exert a prominent role in the League of Nations, after its involvement in World War I. In World War II Brazil remained neutral until August of 1942, when the country entered in that war on the allied side, after suffer retaliations undertaken by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, due the country have severed diplomatic relations with them in the wake of Pan-American Conference. With the allied victory in 1945 and the end of the Nazi-fascist regimes in Europe, Vargas's position became unsustainable and he was swiftly overthrown in another military coup, being the Democracy "reinstated" by the same army that had discontinued it 15 years before. Vargas committed suicide in August 1954 amid a political crisis, after having returned to power by election in 1950"
Cybershore (
talk)
15:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You are at 6 reverts which is 2x3RR. Please stop, otherwise a report has to be filed. Thanks in advance. Dr. K. 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you review your decision to omit Colombia and Cuba, in the light of Battle of the Caribbean? The Banner talk 21:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response." Julian Assange
|
Hi. Please see the discussion on the Gothic Line and Spring 1945 offensive I have started at Talk:Italian Campaign (World War II)#Recent edits on section 5. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Cybershore. Your contribution to the Pelé page is appreciated. I've only made some language corrections in your edits, whilst trying to keep the information you brought to the article unchanged. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN ( talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 04:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Cybershore, To my opinion, mentioning the Rio conference is redundant for two reasons:
Therefore, I don't think that a non-decisive meeting of not-very-important countries deserves a separate mentioning. This sentence just distracts a reader's opinion from really important events.
Best regards,
--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you have been insisting on adding unnecessary information into the text no matter how many editors revert your edits, I've requested an administrator to deal with the matter. You should learn that in Wikipedia you should try to talk first, and discuss later if you notice that other editors are opposing your actions. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Change {{
unblock}}
to {{
unblock}}
Cybershore ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
'Refering to my block, I appeal believing that I should be unblocked due the following reasons:
Thus, I appeal not by the block itself (just 24 hrs) but by the concept, since I firmly believe due the reasons above, I did not incur in any moment in edit warring Thanks Cybershore ( talk) 05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned on Feb 24 about edits being against consensus. According to WP:BRD you do NOT simply revert a revert: you discuss. You musy also know that an edit war is not the same as 3 reverts. This block should be longer based on your previous warnings, however, I trust that you will read the links provided, and understand WP:CONSENSUS better when this block expires ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 05:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version. Do not accept 'Policy' , 'consensus', or 'procedure' as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately" ; will not be me, who will dispute.
Cybershore, I urge you to discuss with the other editors. You haven't gain any consensus previously and you must do so now. Continuing to repeat the same actions will lead to another block. Elockid ( Talk) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
1st I have exposed my arguments and no one has presented any arguments against it, including (and this is very significant) the fact that I have shown that Lecen has repeatedly lied (to be polite) about a bibliographic citation (of nr.83) , ie the author in the passage quoted from the book used as reference wrote one thing, and Lecen "freely" cites another (If you don't have the menionted book, this can be checked easily by using "Look Inside" tool in the Amazon Books' Website );
2nd no one has demonstrated, proved or even argued against in a historical or argumentative basis that what I wanted to edit was irrelevant, quite the contrary; observe the discussion (I again ask that you do so) and see that my argument has no counter- argument, even in my accusations regarding the use of double standards related to the disruptive edits
Sincerely, Cybershore ( talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"...from the Brazil talk page: 1) Again, nobody has presented any counter-argument, limiting to just stick to personal views of what it should be considered important or not, and worse, getting into the highly relative field of spelling as easy justification for scape of debate;
2) In relation to the supposed consensus, well ... No one should fear of facing groups, particularly when members of a group flatly refuse to counter-argue or deliberately choose going through the easy path of deleting, instead of improve what they criticize (spelling). Cybershore (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That's your inference about and sad again seeing that you selectively inferred, not impartially, I feel double standard here again, for example:
when you says " even though arguments are present in the talk page ", you selectively "forget" that: 1st I responded to these arguments, and then and only then and from this point, there were no more counter-arguments presented that refute my points of view presented above.
Sure, even related to these 1st initial arguments against my case, if I behave inferring freely, I might have classified them as assertions in the "Because I said so" category.
But no. I responded them, one by one. Now, I also see that you still having nothing to say about spurious quotations Cybershore ( talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, well, well, curious that in the meanwhile you've been showing very quickly in order to respond Lecen down there
And after almost one month later, alleging "technical difficulties" you simply continue to ignore the central issue: incredible that it took you that long to selectively mining a portion of the discussion "forgeting" my reply and the lack of counter-arguments coming from the other party, because
Again, I repeat: those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others, trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, accusing others of their own practice
or attempting to divert the focus of the topic discussed...
So, 1 more time ...I have no fear, shame or hesitation in my mind change if / when the facts Presented Convince me. " (01:49, 8 March 2011). Unfortunately, as far now, this doesn't seem to be the case of who has repeatedly ignored the debate and made disruptive reversals, among other things already reported (02:24, 23 April 2011)
I believe that Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those flawed or incomplete. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can be enhanced and fitted when appropriate, and not locked/closed (under the euphemism of "protected")... (03:32, 3 May 2011)
Thus, sorry but nor I, neither anybody with dignity can accept as arguments things Like "Because I said so, it is so!" "Take it or leave it".
I was very clear about the bibliographic spurious reference, the nr. 83, 3rd line in the "Early Republic" section.
Now, IF in order to Not check this, leaving behind any pretense of impartiality that you perhaps had, you prefer to bypass the step by step via Google books or amazon books suggested above, feeling more comfortable grinning nervously, claiming not to find the physical book, well... it is an ethical problem concerning to your conscience, not to my... Cybershore ( talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well,
1)My clear indications of how to locate the spurious reference in question are from the 08th of May, yours non-response or refusal, if you will, is dated on May 27... 20 days, almost one month...
2)about this spurious Quote/citation, on the article's talk page and here, (again) I pointed out:
1st its number on the article are 83, see Early Republic section, 3rd line and compare what is write there with the original Barman's book "Citizen Emperor" (used for citation), page 403.
2nd I initially thought it was just a faulty Quote, perhaps the result of a distracted reading by a hurried editor. But later, when the actual quote was systematically overlapped by simple revertions (disruptive and tendentious edits), I had no doubt of its pure and plain bad faith.
3)Related to consider a debate on Wikipedia as something to "win"or "lose" game, I think it unnecessary to have to re-paste my position about it, but obviously if it will prolonged and the same key will played repeatedly (as well as about my arguments and others things)... why not?
I remind you also that in the "Real World" (which the network environment are part, just to remember) when the question is to "win" hearts and minds, are many many examples, historical and present, to demonstrate that no dictator or group manages to maintain or impose themselves without the support or apathy of an majority.
Which also leads to remember that there are also numerous examples, from the " flat earth theory" to racism as well as medical practices that fell into disrepute, that were justified on pseudoscience, and even after being confronted by evidence still had the support of the majority for a long time ...an "wrong" minority has steadily and patiently grown to become a majority.
And I'm talking about really huge crowds, generations' beliefs, not just 3, 4 (particularly one, since the silence of others may also mean, among other things, abstention) guys' stubbornness in maintaining at any cost (as the trying to taking advantage of double standards, disruptive/tendentions editions, intimidation, offenses etc), a extensive but incomplete version for a section of an encyclopedia article, including a spurious quote, rather than let the things roll. Cybershore ( talk) 04:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I see...
Look, if an author writes something in a certain portion of a given book, and another person writes a different one, quoting his/her different phrase as if this was the original phrase contained in the book which he/she uses as a reference, changing the meaning of the original one, this is an spurious quote, mister.
The way you say, the regulation says okay if in a given article, a majority consensus, no matter how many people, seems to agree that doomsday or rapture, as described in some sects, should be interpreted literally...
But if you mean that there is no point in keep discussion with the bureaucracy here, you're right;
For now, going back to continue the debate in the clos... "protected" article, on its Talking page Cybershore ( talk) 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"What is the background information that makes it spurious? How was the meaning changed? This is my question."
Elockid,
about it there is no disput, at least in Brazil among Brazilian scholars...
Since the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.
Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government, for 1894, much before 1893's events.
Furthermore, in Brazil even among monarchists and advocates of the military regimes agree that when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes as the majors consequences of 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country), were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.
So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference (right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here) did not wrote it.
Now,
Again, I´m no nuts to wanna, neither be the "right guy" nor do the "ultimate" version of the "Early Republic" section, in "Brazil" article.
I remind one more time that: my edit of this section of March 16 (not a Great edit, not "the best edit", not a "sacred wrote in the stone" edit, just one more among many others to be constantly improved) stood there over whole month with nobody complaining (in discussion) or reversing.
Only when I noted that the paragraph had been constantly edited (again I ask that you observe the history of that article), in a way that the meaning was getting half cloudy, as you can see here (see 2.3 Early Republic, 1st paragraph), and along this month (as you can see on the history of the article), as nobody really cared to complain or edit about it, I fixed it (without an reversion) on April 21, having another person later corrected a flaw in the input of a reference;
And... was only then that this stuff started again, with a disruptive revertion, one more time, more than a month later!!! Backing to "sacred" one, with the identical spuriousness about the reference and on correlation both cited above.
But in reality, I must thank that this is happening, otherwise, I guess such details, among others, wouldn't be disclosed here prior to new edits Cybershore ( talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, definitely! Cybershore ( talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
( Elockid, ) Thanks for warning me, but Cybershore has made the discussion unbearable already. So huge are his messages that I hardly believe someone will have the patience to actually take a look and read it. Since no one will answer he will believe that that is a sign of support for him and he will add his piece of text once more (he whas been trying to do that for.. 2 years now). He didn't care before when 3 editors opposed him (and went as far to believe that 2 other editors supported him, although they didn't) and won't care now. I added myself a message there but that's all I'm going to do. But thank you for being kind on coming to me to tell about the discussion that was reopened. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I came here because I want to use this as an evidence that I had warned you about your behavior. No one has support your claims and you still revert them. If you don't stop I will have no other option than to report you at the ANI and ask for your block. -- Lecen ( talk) 15:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Brazil with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, Quinxorin ( talk) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to read WP:SCREW. Quinxorin ( talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:
Best to read over
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle before someone blocks you
Cybershore, I've blocked you for a week for your last comment at Talk:Brazil. You've been warned numerous times about personal attacks and yet you have persisted. I have tried to help you, but I'm concerned about your behavior. When your block expires, you may return to the discussion, but I strongly recommend you refrain from attacking other editors and try to be more concise with your comments. Considering your ability with the English language it would be best to try to write shorter simpler comments. -- Daniel 15:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What "additions" specifically you're talking about (so I can adjust or respond)?
Why, again this
double standard behavior related just to one part; since, I answered all the objections one by one, while the seriously and gravely accusation made up by me, and proved, repeatedly, throughout this year and a half about spurious quote remains ignored???
And Please answer this time:
1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?
2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?
Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes
mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???
3) Which group of honest editors ...who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?
Cybershore (
talk)
16:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Cybershore ( talk) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You were blocked. While blocked, you edited without logging in in order to evade the block. I therefore increased the length of your block and also blocked the IP number that you used. You are welcome to appeal against the block. (Incidentally, any administrator who thinks that the block should be shortened or ended is welcome to do so without consulting me.) Or of course you can just sit it out: after it has ended, your constructive edits will be welcome. However, further attempts to evade the block will merely get you into deeper trouble. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Obvious that I consider my block unfair.
But you know what?
Sorry, but dealing with bureaucracy appealing to its deaf ears, having to decipher and fit oneself to walls of bureaucratic text, made purposely in a confused way, doesn't seem to be a reliable option.
Cybershore (
talk)
06:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"It is not a "fake quote" it is an nuanced issue of context.
The sentence you have issues with was outside of the quote.
You may be right about the change in context changing the meaning,
"I don't have any idea"
Daniel
18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"If you genuinely think I am in the wrong you are welcome to use the unblock template and seek other opinions."
Daniel
18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
To the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful ones:
See above
The heart of this Case;
As well as the sections
Spurious Quotations,
Once Again, and sections
Warning to
Judge by yourselves II in my Talk Page;
To note that
1) from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose, no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed,
even taking into account that the present version:
1.1) incurs spurious quote in the 1st paragraph,
1.2) also have too detailed and redundant information (for an article that are supposed to be short...) on the 2nd paragraph,
and 1.3) besides be longer, are incomplete, vague and non neutral in the 3rd...
2) How not to think in double standard when:
The last disruptive revertion, besides be longer than the version I propose (2.1), was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above (again... See above points A to E in "Once Again" section ) that were related only to the 2nd paragraph (of the version I propose 2.2);
and that
2.3) No word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the 1st paragraph, as well as against or about the 3rd paragraph, that according to some editor (Ctr F on word "solid" to see above, on the discussion about grammar in the "Once Again" section), was "pretty solid"...
And even so, the revertion was done...
So, I again ask you all:
1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?
2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?
Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???
3) Which group of honest editors, ladies and gentlemen, who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?
Cybershore (
talk)
05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Right,
For the 2nd paragraph, the why (for what needs to be done), and how (suggestions) -
1st, the why:
besides the 1) excessive number of bibliographical citations in Portuguese, which I claim to be unneeded, since there is abundant literature in English dealing with the subject;
My suggestion is that (keeping the paragraph short, btw depending on the option to be chosen, even shorter), must be also fixed:
2) the truncation of the narrative, referring to fix the correlational gaps of
2.1 the beginning of the republic and the military rebellions of the 1920s, and to
2.2 the mentions about all revolts of the 1930s, and not just the communist one,
Or
- 2.2.1 - to maintain coherence, don' mention any (1930s) revolt specifically , in the manner suggested below
3) (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail. In this case, inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period
I refer specifically to this passage "The repression of the opposition was brutal with more than 20,000 people imprisoned, internment camps created for political prisoners in distant regions of the country, widespread torture by the government agents of repression, and censorship of the press.**" ;
which can be summarized as suggested (see suggestion about Point 3) below
My suggestions for How -
Regarding to:
Point 1, use the abundant literature in English dealing with the subject, as some which I used
Point 2.1, a variation of what I had proposed:
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, through various civilian and military rebellions, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt."
Or, shorter
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt."
Points 2.2, 2.2.1 and 3 (bold letters)
"Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. "
Thus (following the justifications above), one possibility of how the entire paragraph could be:
"Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt. Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. "
Note that, besides Not contain the defects stated above, even With the phrase "in the wake of the murder of his running mate, " - this possible version is by far a shorter paragraph than the present version.
Cybershore (
talk)
17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My suggestions and justifications related to it:
Besides the 1) above mentioned reason concerning bibliographical citations in Portuguese, my reasons and suggestions about what to fixed:
2) As in the previous paragraph (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Again, details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period
I refer specifically to this passage "Vargas then forced German, Japanese and Italian immigrants into concentration camps" .
Besides being a subject that should be detailed in specific articles, the sentence, as written, denotes another spurious correlation for 2 reasons:
1st Because it gives the impression (to those who doesn't know the topic) that all Germans, Italians and Japanese immigrants (and their descendants) were interned then in concentration camps, as what happened to the Japanese-Americans in the U.S. at those times;
2nd the own magazine article makes it very clear right from its subtitle "Hundreds of immigrants were interned in farmlands during WWII", then specifying along the article, cases regarding such imprisonments
3) Fix the two last sentences, since as they are now "Democracy was reinstated and General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president" / "...but he was incapable of either governing under a democracy or of dealing with an active opposition, and he committed suicide in 1954" ; besides being longer, incomplete, vague and non neutral, can also give rise to spurious inferences.
So, I propose that it be changed to what we agreed when we talked specifically about grammar, with the citation used then (McCann; Frank D. "Soldiers of the Patria: A History of the Brazilian Army, 1889-1937" Stanford University Press 2004,
Page 441: "The elected government over which Dutra presided from 1946 to 1951 was supported by the conservative interventionist army and not a suddenly democratic entity.
...[Then] Dutra drew a significant parallel: "Thus it was on November 15, 1889 and on October 29, 1945." To him, the overthrow of Pedro II and of Getúlio Vargas were analogous and for the same purpose - "For the greatness of Brazil" ).
Therefore, including our concordance above about changing and moving the present last sentence (concerning about the 3 only issues related to pre-Vargas Brazilian foreign policy of this 1st Republican period) of the 1st paragraph to the 3rd paragraph;
My main suggestion concerning this paragraph, is the same that we had previously agreed:
"In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of the republican period was followed by a failed attempt to exert a prominent role in the League of Nations, after its involvement in World War I. In World War II Brazil remained neutral until August of 1942, when the country entered in that war on the allied side, after suffer retaliations undertaken by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, due the country have severed diplomatic relations with them in the wake of Pan-American Conference. With the allied victory in 1945 and the end of the Nazi-fascist regimes in Europe, Vargas's position became unsustainable and he was swiftly overthrown in another military coup, being the Democracy "reinstated" by the same army that had discontinued it 15 years before. Vargas committed suicide in August 1954 amid a political crisis, after having returned to power by election in 1950"
Cybershore (
talk)
15:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You are at 6 reverts which is 2x3RR. Please stop, otherwise a report has to be filed. Thanks in advance. Dr. K. 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you review your decision to omit Colombia and Cuba, in the light of Battle of the Caribbean? The Banner talk 21:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Cybershore. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)