User talk:Sim(ã)o(n)

How dare you edit other people's post to reflect your own personal religious beliefs? Are you insane?? By inserting this text into your personal page I am showing you the same sort of disrespect you display with your religiously motivated censorship. Would it be acceptable to you if people who find your religion offensive went into your posts and removed or altered your references to it? I can only assume it would not, and rightly so. Hypocritically, you do not show others the same basic regard/respect.

Despite my familiarity with the penchant religious folk have for imposing their magical "belief systems" on others, it still shocks me to see people like yourself so shamelessly attacking the work of others. Your sanctimonious patronizing condescension notwithstanding ('You see, I'm a Christian...[therefore it's okay for me to attack your work and change it according to my own personal opinions]'), your actions are aggressive. They are overtly aggressive acts committed against other people, and they are by definition antithetical to Wikipedian ideals.

Shame on you!!

ps - Because I am a devoted AntiChoclatarian, I have decided your reference to chocolate is offensive to my personal religion. Obviously, if it is offensive to me personally, that means it's okay for me to vandalize your page and alter your reference to it.

See how that works?

If you are frightened by the template above, allow me to consolate you: not all those scenarios are actually possible, i.e., I doubt I'll ever go to a war or be in jail. The likelihood of being kidnapped or dead soon is also quite low... Apart from that, I have to say any other scenario predicted above is very likely.

Welcome!

File:XXXXXXX chip cookies.jpg

Some XXXXXXcookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Sim(ã)o(n)! Thank you for your contributions. I am David1217 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, thank you for the cookies!... Now, I wanna thank you for your welcoming. I will check for help when I need it. Thank you again! Oh! And by the way, sorry answering only now... I've seen your post but haven't had time yet... Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Português, Mirandês & etc

Olá Simão,

De facto, na Internet aparece a informação de que o mirandês e a língua gestual são línguas oficiais em Portugal. Mas é somente uma força de expressão, talvez com o significado de serem reconhecidas oficialmente. Língua oficial há só uma, aquela em são redigidos os documentos oficiais (há países onde são duas e mais). Tem graça, conheço bem uma pessoa que fez o texto de vários programas "Cuidado com a língua" e eu próprio colaborei em dois! Cumprimentos, Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Obrigado pela comunicação. Eu não tenho a certeza. Eu nunca desconfiei do Cuidado Com a Língua; sempre achei que diziam a verdade e que era feito por pessoas que tinham bastantes conhecimentos de Português. Mas pode-se confirmar noutros sítios. Eu hei-de ir vendo isso, mas para já, sugiro que se indique que são línguas reconhecidas. Na Wikipédia Portuguesa, é dito que a língua oficial é o Português, mas há uma nota a dizer que o mirandês e a língua gestual são reconhecidas e protegidas, citando os artigos da Constituição referentes a isso. Se souber como (digo isto porque eu não sei), faça algo semelhante na English Wikipedia. Já agora, quero felicitá-lo pelas suas contribuições, tanto para a English Wikipedia, como para as outras, se já lá fez alguma coisa! (Já agora, não será que alguém da English Wikipedia nos vai chatear por estarmos a escrever em Português?) - Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As normas legais que regulam o assunto são a Constituição e a Lei 7/99, que já referi. No artigo também há uma nota a referir o Mirandês e a Língua gestual portuguesa, veja com atenção na caixa à direita. Não há qualquer problema em falarmos em português! O uso doutras línguas é muito comum quando se conversa nas talk pages. Os meus contributos são sobretudo em imagens (flora, fauna, edifícios, paisagem, etc.). Veja na Commons, que é o meu poiso habitual: [1]. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Pois é, mas não tem nada a indicar o artigo da Constituição que o diz, o que seria bom. Para já, parece-me ser só isso... - Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents

Hi- I have made edits on User:Sim(ã)o(n)/sandbox and left comments at User_talk:Sim(ã)o(n)/sandbox. Please let me know what you think. Please feel free to undo/revert anything you don't like. Best--Godot13 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your edits. Read my reply on my sandbox's talk page -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Aviation incidents

Your solution sounds fine to me. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Now you see why you should justify your changes, right? It would make absolutely no sense to go on fighting... I can see through your home page that you are an active and congratulated Wikipedian. I appreciate that. I suppose that, as you live in the US, you may prefer to see dates in the format "mdy", but if the whole article is written in the format "dmy", we should keep it like that, unless when the date format is part of the way how the situation is known (as it was in the title). I also thought this was a good solution, but now I feel good that you think the same way! :) -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 15:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Death tape

Please take a moment to review that the audio recording from the Death tape article was moved into Jonestown#Deaths in Jonestown section of the parent article (Jonestown, Revision as of 13:27, August 24, 2013). Additionally, your reversion to the Death tape article reintroduced several statements that fall under WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, including "Some debate has been raised as to the authenticity of the tape", and "In the background of the tape, there is what sounds like organ music and/or a choir singing. After careful analysis, however, it appears the music actually consists of a number of soul tunes". There is no sourced information within the Death tape article that is not already contained within Jonestown#Deaths in Jonestown, and the lack of sources show that this article is not independently notable of Jonestown. AldezD (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I hadn't actually noticed yet the recording had been copied when I undid your edit. That was good. I've actually downloaded the recording, though I haven't yet heard it...

About weasel words, or whatever there is here, I suggest that we analyse the article carefully. Here is the text of the article. Any green or red bold text between brackets is my commentary.

The death tape or "Q042" is the final tape recorded by Jim Jones before the mass suicide of the residents of Jonestown in Guyana, in 1978. This recording includes Jones urging the members of the Jonestown community to come forward to receive the poison – first for their children, then for themselves – as Jones describes the horrors of what would await those who did not commit what he described as "revolutionary suicide". (Everything fine so far) Some debate has been raised as to the authenticity of the tape, owing largely to the number of audible edits (Here begins the fight. I personally find no problem with this statement. It shows the viewpoint of those who hardly believe this tape actually refers to those events, and defends that...); however, given that other tapes generated by Peoples Temple also contain numerous edits, and given that the tape refers to events quite specific to 18 November 1978 (... and it goes on to present the viewpoint of those who believe this tape refers to the event, defending it, and basically explaining why this is the most widely accepted version. I see no problem with this sentence. It refers to both viewpoints. It's neutral.), it seems likely that the tape is genuine and it was recorded on that date. (Now here I could begin to disagree. Although it presents an apparently pretty logical deduction, it may not be so logical. Here the sentence, doesn't seem so neutral to me. Perhaps we should change to something like: "it seems plausible, and is widely accepted, that the tape is genuine and it was recorded on that date." If you have any better ideas, tell me.)

In the background of the tape, there is what sounds like organ music and/or a choir singing. (All seems fine to me here. I assume this is easily hearable if you listen to the tape.) After careful analysis, however, it appears the music actually consists of a number of soul tunes (such as "I'm Sorry" by the Delfonics and "I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Love You)" by Aretha Franklin) originally copied onto the tape, then taped over by Jones, resulting in a "ghost recording". (This is one of those sentences that has to be sourced. This one is. If it weren't, I think it should be removed. But it is, so I guess there's no problem.) In 1984, Temple Records released a vinyl LP of the tape under the title Thee Last Supper. (Now it does seem like this sentence is really out of context. I think this sentence should be removed. No one cares about Thee Last Supper. We care about the Death tape. This should be removed.)

Now, besides those two sentences, I see no problem. If you think I'm wrong somewhere, please point out those sentences to me, and explain exactly what is wrong with them. I have no problem about letting the article be redirected to "Jonestown" whilst we reach a consensus, but I still think it should be reset, even by changing or deleting those two sentences. Please tell me your opinion. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Here are some of my own additional comments in response:

• Some debate has been raised as to the authenticity of the tape, owing largely to the number of audible edits—Debate among whom? Scholars? Archivists? Individuals creating webpages about the incident? This is not sourced and not attributable to a specific group.
• however, given that other tapes generated by Peoples Temple also contain numerous edits—Where are the other tapes referenced in this statement? How can one prove there are other tapes and those tapes contain edits similar to what is being claimed on the death tape?
• it seems likely that the tape is genuine and it was recorded on that date—I agree with you that this should be modified to something such as "it is widely accepted that the tape was recorded on 18 November 1978.
• After careful analysis, however, it appears the music actually consists of a number of soul tunes (such as "I'm Sorry" by the Delfonics and "I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Love You)" by Aretha Franklin) originally copied onto the tape, then taped over by Jones, resulting in a "ghost recording".—Careful analysis by whom? Is this an editor adding his own WP:OR? Also, this statement assumes the tape had a previous recording on it that was later recorded-over. There is no source stating this information is factual—it's one editor's analysis of what he or she thinks is on the tape and what happened. Adding "ghost recording" is WP:PEA way of sensationalizing the artifact.
• LP release—You and I are in agreement about removing that statement.

I'm not sure what you mean about being "reset" even though the redirect will stay in-place. Can you explain? AldezD (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, maybe you're right. This debate related to the tape's authenticity has really no source... However, I would have trouble believing that no one disagrees with the fact that the tape is genuine... After all, when you say something without irrefutable proof, there's usually always someone saying that's not true, even if you don't hear them! But perhaps this is really not needed, if there's no place where they actually criticise this authencity. We have no access either to these "numerous edits on other Peoples Temple's tapes". So I guess this information could be removed. But now about the careful analysis and the status of the tape before the events of November 18^th, 1978, I have to say I wouldn't remove them because of the source. I've just taken a look at it, though, and read the text "in diagonal", but, through what I've read, I got the feeling that this is based on a lot of supositions... The author seems to assume from the beginning that there was no music being played during the mass murder-suicide, and they don't seem to explain why they believe that. It looks like this source isn't really reliable... Perhaps this statement could also be removed.

However, now I find myself before a hypothetical 2-sentence-and-1-audio-file article: the second adjective I've used speaks for itself—there's no reason for the article to keep on existing!... Or... is there? How short can an article worthy of existence be? Well, whatever the answer, I'm now pretty convinced that there's no reason why the article shouldn't be redirected to "Jonestown". In that case, let's keep it this way. And let me also note that, if anyone ever finds any reliable source that would help to add good information about this "Death tape", perhaps we should add this new information to the article "Jonestown", instead of re-opening the article "Death tape", because, indeed, anything in the latter can be easily inserted into the former, unless it becomes too much information. Summing up, it looks like I failed to notice some original research. I have to say these "weasel words" are very subtle. I've never really seen their danger... I would never doubt them. I'm not one of those guys who hears "Some people say that (...)" and immediately asks "I'm sorry, who?". You are one of those. That's good! Congratulations! And thank you also very much for your patience and desire to explain this to me! May you always be a good, helpful, and contributing Wikipedian! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 21:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on your last comments looks like we are in agreement with authenticity. I think it'd be fine to say "widely accepted" regarding the recording date without having a definite source. Regarding the separate article, I don't feel this specific recording meets WP:GNG nor is it independently notable from Jonestown. If you want to merge anything into Jonestown we discussed above and are in agreement about including, go for it. See you around! AldezD (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, we are in agreement. May both articles be merged (if they aren't yet). But what do you exactly mean when you say this recording doesn't meet WP:GNG? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 14:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)