User talk:Ninguém

(Hipocricy removed)

Dated comments

Hi. I see you are replacing your old name with your new name in your comments on various talk pages. I don't see the purpose for this, but I guess it isn't too disruptive. You shouldn't be changing the dates, though, because that makes it difficult to understand the flow of the conversation. Could you please stop changing the dates? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you've been replacing the old sigs with ~~~~. Please don't do that, since although it's easier, it does change the date. Instead, copy-paste only the username into the old sig, leaving the old dates as they are, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, it highlights the changes you've made, which I don't think you want to happen: I see you haven't done too many of these yet, so you might want to go back and redo them all as your time allows, so the old dates are shown again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily, I have done practically all of them, which took a lot of work. I will change the few remaining ones in the way you suggest, but I don't think I will have the patience to redo all the others any time soon. Sorry for the trouble, but I didn't actually realise there was a problem there. Ninguém (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

The user Opinoso is a very complicated person to deal with. He can do whatever he wants in the articles he "owns" while no one else may touch any of them. And he is always acting like he was the victim of attacks that never happened and at the same time keeps threatening me. - --Lecen (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ninguem- keep up your fight against Opinoso, he's a real low life. People like this guy ruin Wikipedia. We have to find some way to stop him from changing every article on Brazil. Adios. -Vivalatinamerica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.200.215 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some users make small, foolish edits that do not improve the articles. Other users revert them systematically and, through this, acquire "respectability" as "good users" that "fight vandalism and disruption". The former are not in conflict with the latter; actually they constitute the "food" on which the latter prey to get stronger in Wikipedia - sometimes becoming so strong that they can actually "own" articles, because any attempt to modify "their" articles tends to be understood as an example of "vandalism" or "disruption".

You do me (or Wikipedia) no favour in edit warring the way you do. On the contrary, you fortify and legitimate article ownership.

Have a nice time. Ninguém (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right- I got way too carried away trying to stop Opinoso. Well, that's an understatement, lol- I got far too caught up in arguing with the wacko. It just really annoys me how insanely biased he is in changing so much of wikipedia. I'll stop, and I just hope you have better luck stopping assholes like him. Good luck. - Vivalatinamerica.

blocked

You should know by now that edit warring isn't allowed on en.Wikipedia because it never helps. You've fallen back into the harmful back and forth of edit warring, moreover with the same editor, so I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Block appeal

The edit wars consist in the following:

In White Brazilians:

[1] (contrary to source)

[2] (per source)

[3] (refers to Darcy Ribeiro, Varguista anthropologist, but does not even refers to a source)

[4] (per source)

[5] (now gives Ribeiro as a source, but says the information is in volume 7 of O Povo Brasileiro - a book that has only one volume).

In São Paulo:

[6] (undoes varies changes in a same edit, including restoring references whose titles don't match the sources' names)

[7] (undoes blind reversal, in order to restore proper name of references)

[8] (reintroduces references that were replaced back in December 2008, replacement that has not been objected by anyone during seven months. Summary edit talks about "unexplained changes" - the change was in December 7th, 2008, and was explained as "removing broken links".)

[9] (reverts to newer sources with corrected names)

[10] (reverts, calling reverted edit "vandalism").

With the edit war about sources, as the reverals are blind, comes the reinstatement of the "information" that there are 6 million Italians (not Italian Brazilians, but Italians period) in São Paulo...

That's the story - or those are the stories. Ninguém (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}}

Content has nothing to do with it. You can't edit war over a content disagreement, even if the other editor is wholly mistaken. This back and forth reverting between the two of you must stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So, if I make an edit, and another editor reverts it in direct contradiction to the cited sources, I should not reverse? What should I do? Ninguém (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File a report.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So that someone who neither cares nor knows anything on the subject can tell me that I should "kiss and make up" ([11])? Ninguém (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that. That's English language idiom. If you can't get along with each other, stay away from each other. What I'm saying is, you can't edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Every time I have filed a report, I have been told it's a content issue. The only times I could get someone to actually look at the dispute were when you noticed that good faith edits were being called "vandalism", and when Hoary looked at a reversal that was totally contrary to the source. But then I got enslaved to German Brazilian, while the other poster, refusing to cooperate with Hoary, was free to make whatever edit he found interesting.

If I must promise that I won't edit war, I need to be reassured that the complaints I eventually make will be taken in serious. Ninguém (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I know it is an English language idiom. It means that I should drop the issue and get along as if nothing had happened. Which, evidently, isn't as ridiculous as suggesting an actual kiss, but comes close. Ninguém (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I won't. Instead, I'm going to file a complaint against this guy. Am I going to be told to kiss and make up? Or that it is a content issue, and that no one can do anything, because no one understand the content? Or that it "takes two to tango"? Or that there are "personal attacks on both sides"? Or am I going to have to limit myself to edit one article (and then be treated as a second rate employee if I mismanage a reference) while this guy does what he wants everywhere, in spite of being told to edit his sandbox? Ninguém (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First, the edit warring stops. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's easy to see: He reversed my edits, I reversed his. He reversed me back again, I reversed him a second time. He reversed a third time. Instead of doing the same, I complained to you in your talk page. What does that say about the edit war continuing or stopping? Ninguém (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If, after your block is up, you edit war again, you'll be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. This means the first absurd this guy does, such as placing text in direct contradiction to the given source, I am reporting him. I hope I don't get stupid "kiss and make up" responses again, as I hope I don't get idiotly blocked by someone who can't read. Let's see. Ninguém (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, no. I am going to report his attempts to keep misinformation in White Brazilian with the "less than 700,000" thing. Ninguém (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet you carry on commenting about the other editor. Please stop now. Comment only on content and sources. If you comment about the other editor again (outside an RfC or RfAR), I will very likely block you again. You will not get what you want by trying to get an admin to sanction another editor with whom you have but a disagreement about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1. That isn't a "comment" on another editor. It is a complaint. And it is not about content, it is about renewed personal attacks. So, the place for that, if you aren't going to take any measures to stop those personal attacks, isn't RfC or RfAR, but ANI. Ninguém (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way, as of now I am banning you from posting about Opinoso outside of an RfC or RfAR. If you breach this ban, I'll block you for two weeks. Either stay away from Opinoso, or blend your PoV with his, or file an RfC or RfAR. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you forbidding me from filing an ANI complaint? Ninguém (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And can you do that? Ninguém (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. WP:NPA is straightforward. Comment only on content, not on other editors, I've told you about this so many times. Enough is enough, I will block you for two weeks if you post about Opinoso outside of an RfC or RfAR. I'll be giving the same warning to Opinoso if it's called for after his block is up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. So let's talk about content. In White Brazilian, this edit [12] introduced Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro as a source for this information:

"According to Darcy Ribeiro before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled in Brazil <ref>Darcy Ribeiro. O Povo Brasileiro, Vol. 07, 1997 (1997).</ref>."

Unhappily, I know of no edition of O Povo Brasileiro in 7 or more volumes. Here is the best visualisation I could find of it online:

[13]

I have searched it many times. I haven't found the information purported in the article there. Is it possible to ask for a page, a chapter, a quote, that points to that information? Ninguém (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk about it with Opinoso or any other editor who edits the article, but don't comment on Opinoso again, even on this talk page, outside of an RfC or RfAR, or I'll block you for two weeks. If Opinoso carries on commenting about you, or will not talk with you about sources, I'll likewise block Opinoso for two weeks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done: [14] Ninguém (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And more here: [15].

Is there a deadline for this discussion to happen? Ninguém (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no deadlines for discussions on en.Wikipedia. However, if the other editor comments on you, I'll warn him not to do so outside of an RfC or RfAR. If the editor doesn't want to talk about sources and content, I may warn him that undoing your edits without comment is a kind of edit warring and disruptive. If he calls your good faith edits vandalism again, I'll block him. Mind, I'm very neutral on the content disagreement between you two. You may want to find a way to blend your sources with his, with the text noting that there may be a disagreement. However, you must be very careful not to stray into original research and keep in mind that ethnicity mixed with nationalism is almost always a highly, highly controversial, weakly sourced topic which most editors want nothing to do with. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, Gwen. How am I going to "blend" my sources with his, when I can't discuss them? And why am I the only one that cannot make original research, while others can not only do original research (for instance, the article on White Brazilians if full of original research, including a whole section about "colonial Whites", a concept that cannot be found anywhere in the litterature), but quote sources as saying something that they do not actually say?

This is not an "encyclopaedia", this is a farce. Ninguém (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's a joke and a farce, then don't edit here. If en.Wikipedia is indeed a joke and a farce, smart readers won't give Wikipedia article much heed anyway, so there is no pith to your editing here to begin with and nothing is lost. Whatever the truth of this may be, you're trying to edit in one of the more difficult, nettlesome and weakly sourced, broad topic areas on en.Wikipedia (and in the world) and forgive me for saying so, but English is not a first language for you or the other editor and moreover, some of the sources are in Portuguese, which makes this even harder for everyone. If you want to gather more input on this from other editors, please do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the most difficult topics. My edits, which I try to make as earnest and sound as possible, never stand. The other editor's edits, which constantly misinterpret the sources, always stand. Perhaps the toppic is only difficult for me, but easy for him?

No, English is not my first language, albeit a have a passable command of it. The problem is not my English, or Opinoso's. The problem is your Portuguese.

There are no other imputs from other editors, nor are they going to be. I have explained this at lenght, and won't explain again. I am merely going to point to the most recent example of why nobody wants to edit those owned articles: the very effective exlusion of User:Lecen from editing them.

You have seen what happened with White Brazilian: three weeks of protection, so that there could be discussion. Where was the discussion? I pointed a series of changes that would be necessary; those were not contested by anyone. When the article was unprotected, I tried to make some of them; some of them were immediately reversed.

What I am asking is pretty reasonable. A huge 500 page book is given as a source for some information. Not even an online version, but a paper version. I am asking for a page or a chapter, so that people can more easily see this information in the source. I am being evidently stonewalled. I am asking you, who are an admin here, to put some pressure so that this source becomes a little bit more precise.

As of now, I have researched the online versions of the book that I could find for that information, and I have not found it there. What should I do? Can I remove the information? Can I replace the offline source with an online one? What else?

I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. This would be a loss for Wikipedia, not for me. If I quit, you will have to deal with the fact that the only person editing those articles will be Opinoso. The quality of those articles, in this case, will be the quality of Opinoso's contributions. Are you earnestly comfortable with that? If you are, I am going to quit. If you aren't, either give me some reason to continue, or find other editors that can contribute there. Preferably editors that know something about Brazil and about demography. Ninguém (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to the content in these articles. I don't care if you, the other editor or someone else is the only one editing the articles. I'm handling this only as an admin watching behaviour as it has to do with policy. As for Portugeuse sources, see Wikipedia:Sources#Non-English_sources. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, this is the English Wikipedia and language does have bearing on its content, systemic bias and all. Nobody said editing here was easy and I don't know any active editor here who gets what they want, content-wise, all the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I know one. But you have asked me to not comment on him.

In any case, good bye. I won't waste my time any more. You can keep your "encyclopaedia" with all its factual errors and abusive editors. Bom proveito! Ninguém (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Ninguém, you have to chose between my version or Opinoso's version of the history section in the article Brazil. Until the other editors (beyond me and him) pick a side, that guy will keep causing disruption on Wikipedia. - --Lecen (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém, take a look at 10 points discussion. Comment on each point, please. --Lecen (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with Opinoso

Ninguém, I am having trouble with Opinoso again. He has baseless reverted sourced information at the sime time he called it "personal theories". See here. He also said that the renowned [Barsa] is not a reliable source. See here. he also again attacked me about the history section while it was discussed and settled by other editors. See here.

He simply reverts anything without even bothering to open a discussion thread or to wait other Editors opinions about it. I can not revert it back because it will become a revert war. How can I handle someone who has no respect for rules? - --Lecen (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no... oh no... oh no... And look who has appeared out of nowhere immediately after I've complained about Opinoso's behavior? That User:Grenzer22 guy! See here. I can't believe he is not a suckpuppet. Is there anyway to check both user's IPs? -