User talk:Luizdl: Difference between revisions
→Brown in Brazil: new section |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Luiz, you must understand first that there is a source in the text that says that Pardo is a multiracial category that includes Cafuzos, Caboclos and Mulattoes. In English, Brown means only someone who is "mulatto". And also, the Aurélio is talking about the colour, not the ethinic category. Read the text first, see the source before undoing it. And if you don't like it for any reason, create a discussion thread. You can not simply erase something that is sourced and that's it. When I made the changes into the history subsection, I was careful to make a long discussion about it, trying to convince everyone one by one before undoing something. Please, be reasonable. I'm counting on you. - --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen|talk]]) 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
Luiz, you must understand first that there is a source in the text that says that Pardo is a multiracial category that includes Cafuzos, Caboclos and Mulattoes. In English, Brown means only someone who is "mulatto". And also, the Aurélio is talking about the colour, not the ethinic category. Read the text first, see the source before undoing it. And if you don't like it for any reason, create a discussion thread. You can not simply erase something that is sourced and that's it. When I made the changes into the history subsection, I was careful to make a long discussion about it, trying to convince everyone one by one before undoing something. Please, be reasonable. I'm counting on you. - --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen|talk]]) 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Pardo means Brown, not multiracial. The multiracial thing is personal theory. [[User:Opinoso|Opinoso]] ([[User talk:Opinoso|talk]]) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:30, 15 November 2009
Welcome!
Hello Luizdl, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
John Vandenberg (chat) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Universal Church of the Kingdom of GodArgentino (talk/cont.) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Skip to TOC template
Not for anything, Luizdl, but I notice that you rm'd the Skip to TOC template I recently installed on the Brazil talk page. I've actually installed this template on hundreds of talk pages to aid those editors who already know what all those banners are about and who want to get to the TOC quickly with just a "click" of their mouse. So I'm just curious about why you chose to remove it?
— .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 05:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, Luizdl, we all make mistakes, and I've made some whoppers in my day. Thank you very much for reinstating the template, and best of everything to you and yours!
- — .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`. 01:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Brazil
Luiz, are you following the discussion about the history section on the article about Brazil? ---Lecen (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please, read this. But read it carefully.
- If the problem was something like "Editor A says that history fact happened in X way according to some sources" and "Editor B says that history fact happened in Y way according to other sources" we could try to find a solution. But that´s not the problem. I have improved the original text by adding reliable sources and removing wrong information. All is in there, as I explained carefully. Opinoso, however, disagrees. To prove his point he used sources and created information that his sources did not tell. In other words, he faked information, once again, damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia. This is not the first time that he does that. What is happening is not a legitimate disagreement between to parties, but an editor that is faking information to prove his personal opinions. All you have to do is see the links I put it and you will understand. I need you to pick a history version: the one with fake and wrong info or the one that I improved with reliable sources taken from renowned historians. If you don´t believe on me, please read it. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you don´t need to be an expert in history to help. We are trying to settle the matter in the article about Brazil once and for all. Take a look at the 10 points settlement. I do really recommend you to read carefully the other editor's opinions also. This 10 points method is more simples and faster than having to read the discussion page discussion all over it again. I must also warn you (to be careful) that some of the passages in dispute have already been proved that they have no basis on its own sources (that is, they were fabricated). - --Lecen (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the problem was something like "Editor A says that history fact happened in X way according to some sources" and "Editor B says that history fact happened in Y way according to other sources" we could try to find a solution. But that´s not the problem. I have improved the original text by adding reliable sources and removing wrong information. All is in there, as I explained carefully. Opinoso, however, disagrees. To prove his point he used sources and created information that his sources did not tell. In other words, he faked information, once again, damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia. This is not the first time that he does that. What is happening is not a legitimate disagreement between to parties, but an editor that is faking information to prove his personal opinions. All you have to do is see the links I put it and you will understand. I need you to pick a history version: the one with fake and wrong info or the one that I improved with reliable sources taken from renowned historians. If you don´t believe on me, please read it. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Brown in Brazil
Luiz, you must understand first that there is a source in the text that says that Pardo is a multiracial category that includes Cafuzos, Caboclos and Mulattoes. In English, Brown means only someone who is "mulatto". And also, the Aurélio is talking about the colour, not the ethinic category. Read the text first, see the source before undoing it. And if you don't like it for any reason, create a discussion thread. You can not simply erase something that is sourced and that's it. When I made the changes into the history subsection, I was careful to make a long discussion about it, trying to convince everyone one by one before undoing something. Please, be reasonable. I'm counting on you. - --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pardo means Brown, not multiracial. The multiracial thing is personal theory. Opinoso (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)