User talk:Opinoso

/Archive 1

OPINOSOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOO!!!

Unsourced information...

You wrote this in my talk page:

Moreover, once again: personal theories are not allowed at Wikipedia. When you change correct informations to incorrect ones, like this [3], another disruption. Plase, read carefully all the rules of Wikipedia, before posting. Opinoso (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that this has nothing to do with any personal theory of my part. Nor did I remove any information. I merely added a Fact Tag to a piece of unsourced information. If it is true that most settlers in Brazil "jumped ship to live among the Indians", which is possible, then it should not be difficult to find sources for that information. User:Ninguém 18:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

Please notice I have filed a complaint about your latest personal attacks [1] against me. User:Ninguém 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am composing this stern warning for both of you at this point, as we've already visited these issues in ANI in the past. Opinoso, I've recommended that User:Ninguém bring his concerns before the WP:3O peers, for 3rd party opinion. Hopefully, this will help put to rest any content disputes that are ongoing at White Brazilian. In the meantime, I would remind you to;

• Remain civil,
• Assume good faith,
• Avoid personal attacks.

Something that you might want to also do at this point is apologize for any misconceptions or slights that have been issued or perceived. I'm not saying that either party is guilty of this (far be it from me to be judge and jury, too many hats!), nor am I saying that you have to apologize to make this work, but it would aid in promoting the process. Edit Centric (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Opinoso. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

calling edits vandalism

You're being talked about at ANI. The meaning of vandalism on en.Wikipedia is narrow. Please don't call cited, good faith edits vandalism. It's true that sometimes, if the PoV of an edit is far from your own, is cited to an unreliable source or mistakenly cited to a reliable one, it may seem like vandalism to you, but unless the edit is straightforwardly meant to harm the project, it may indeed be astray of many policies and guidelines, but it's not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you are both straying from policy.

• Don't make personal attacks.
• Don't remove or change other editors' posts from talk pages
• Don't call good faith edits vandalism.
• Don't try to own a page.
• You may not agree with all reliable sources, but WP:V has sway here.
• Edit by consensus.

Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"It's not a serious user" may sound ok when translated back into Portugese but in English, on en.Wikipedia, it could easily be taken as a personal attack. Please stop that. If you're the only user other than User:Ninguém editing the article, then your edits have no consensus over his. I have yet to say anything at all so far about the content, only your behaviour and his. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Languages of Brazil

According to you Spanish is not an "unofficial" language of Brazil. However, the article clearly states that it is spoken in the regions boarding Argentina and Paraguay.Mitch1981 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification

There's a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Changing_content_on_other_people.27s_Talk_Page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

what is vandalism?

Hi Opinoso, I've told you about this before, see above, so if you've already stopped doing this, please forgive me. edits like this are not vandalism They may be original research, unsourced or wrong, they may be disruptive or tendentious, they may look like vandalism to you and you may think they should be called vandalism, but they are made in good faith and hence are not vandalism on en.Wikipedia (please read this blue link if you haven't already done). Calling an edit vandalism when it is not can be taken as a personal attack, no matter how unhelpful that edit may otherwise be. If you have questions about this, please ask me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Please don't edit war at White Brazilian. Moreover, you're making comments about the editor, rather than writing only about content and sources. These comments could be taken as personal attacks, which aren't allowed. Please use the article talk page to discuss content with the editor. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi Opinoso. Many of your recent edits have lacked edit summaries. These are easy to provide and very helpful. They're particularly important when you're editing an article over which there's a disagreement. As you know, many of your recent edits have been to such articles. Please provide edit summaries, as these not only help people understand what you are doing but also show how helpfully informative you are trying to me. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

Opinoso, you're still edit warring at German Brazilian and White Brazilian. Please stop that. Rather, talk about the content on the article talk pages, or find a new way to deal with the content, don't revert, you've done that far too much already and it's not helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

yet more edit warring

This edit of yours is bizarre. There is no blanket rule against removal of factual, sourced information. And this information, while it may be factually correct, isn't even sourced. The relevant section of the article starts by referring the reader to Riograndenser Hunsrückisch for more information; this section of an article on a dialect of German certainly does not benefit from asides about Brazilian society, education policy, etc.

The last time I encountered you was on 30 May, when you and User:Ninguém were edit warring at German Brazilian. Because of this, the following day I constructed one sandbox for you and one for him. He has used his. You have studiously ignored yours. I also wrote: I shall take a particularly dim view of any potentially controversial edit to an article on any ethnic group in Brazil (or any other closely related matter) as long as this article is protected. After a few days of lying low, this is just what you seem to be doing.

Edit wars are a waste of time and resources. So stop edit warring. And either edit your sandbox at Talk:German Brazilian, or provide a persuasive explanation there of why you are not doing so.

Alternatively, keep on going the way you are going now, and look forward to being blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Moroever, as you have been told many times before, don't comment on the editor, only on content and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian People

It does not matter what you think. If you keep on this war edits, I will report you. Was I clear? - --Lecen (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I try to be patient... let´s go... First of all, it was I who uploaded the picture as you can see on Commons (almost all 19th Century Brazilian Pictures I was the one who uploaded) and the book says she is a mulatto ("Mulata"). Second of all, all three pictures are merely illustrative. I don´t know who you are and I don´t care. I believe you are one of those "Ethnic Cops" who wander around Wikipedia seeing racism everywhere. If there was the picture of a white girl first, it´s racism! If a woman is called "mulatto" (as she has White facial traces) it´s racism! I don´t care. But I will if you keep messing around the articles. - --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder myself why you complain so much about the image of a white girl and later about the picture of a brown woman. You didn´t ask for sources for the other images I´ve posted. I´ve seen that you have something against white people and is too over-protecting about anything related to black people. Anyway, the article is not yours and you can´t erase an information because the book is not available on-line. If that was the case, no article on wikipedia could be verifiable. And call an administrator. Because if you don´t, I do it myself. - --Lecen (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

hey

Hi Opinoso, this was not vandalism at all (not bad faith, not meant to harm). Also, I suggested he do this on any talk page, if he wanted to: Your understanding and patience would be very much appreciated. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

My God! So, if someone tries to change something in an article, it needs first to tell it in the talk page. However, you, and only you, can do whatever you want including starting an edit war in another article? I don´t remember that you used your rule in the article "Brazilian people". Be careful, there are too many complaining about you in here. - --Lecen (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven´t done any "personal attacks" against you. Try at least to be coherent if possible. And there is no "work from somebody else". Once you write into Wikipedia, anyone can change it. That article is NOT yours. Try to understand that once and for all. But I dont´care, the article it´s horrible, just like the other one about the Brazilian People. Both deserved to be great, but now I know why they are so bad. Keep going with the good work! - --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

blocked

I've warned you time and again not to call good faith edits vandalism. Doing so is a personal attack, for which I have blocked you 24 hours. Please have another look at WP:Vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

After further review, I've lengthened this block to 48 hours owing to edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks and 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) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What a curious block. I restored the original sources about those figures because somebody recently replaced them with sources that do not even talk about those figures (and are not reliable, because it's from a site writen by unknown columnists).

And I included the source about the 3 million Portuguese in São Paulo, because the user "Ninguém" included a "fact tag" there. Curiously, the user "Ninguém" reverted the original sources I included. Then, he's the one who started the edit-warring.

Isn't "vandalism" to reverte an user that replaced a "fact tag" with a source and restored the original sources that have been there since a long time, but somebody replaced them? I gave the source about the Portuguese, and "Ninguém" replace the source once again with a "fact tag" and he also reverted to the "new" sources which are from a not reliable site, including the one about the Portuguese which do not even talk about the figure.

I included the source which does talk about 3 million Portuguese and it was reverted by "Ninguém" without any explaination. Isn't vandalism to erase a source and replace it with a "fact tag"? Is it a "good fatih edit"? If this is not vandalism, if it's a normal good faith edit to erase sources and replace them with fact tags, please tell me. Opinoso (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits, made by an editor who thinks they're helpful, even those which you think look crazy or harmful, aren't vandalism (I've told you this many times). They may be wrong, unsupported, disruptive, whatever, but they're not vandalism. Calling them vandalism is a wanton personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To erase a souce and to replace it with a "fact tag" is not to "think an edit is helpful". The only definition is "vandalism". "Ninguém" is a not a new user, he does know very well what he is doing in Wikipedia. He knows very well that I posted a source that gives the 3 million figure, and there was no reason to reverte my edit, unless he was trying to rise another disruption, as usual. And also, he is able to know very well that a site with articles writen by known columnist is a not a reliable source, because he is the one always claiming other users to only use "reliable sources". There's nobody innocent there. Opinoso (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. It may be mistaken, it may be disruptive, but it's not vandalism, which is narrowly defined on en.Wikipedia. I've told you and warned you about this many times before. If, after your block is up, you call more good faith edits "vandalism," the next block will be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If to call "vandalism" an edit of another user who erases sources deserves a 48 hours block, while the user who replaced a source with a fact tag and replaced reliable sources with a site of unknown columnists does not even deserve a "warning" then it's, at least, contradictory. Funny, because these "good faith mistakes" of "Ninguém" only happens when there are figures about Italians, or Germans or other non-Portuguese people involved. Also, these "good faith mistakes" only happens in articles or sessions that I posted. Maybe this is a simple coincidence, with millions of articles in Wikipedia, and only in articles I post it happends. Maybe he's not following my edits, it must be a miraculous coincidence that he only posts where I post. Opinoso (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you 24 hours for the personal attack (after so many warnings) and another 24 hours for edit warring. I've blocked the other editor 24 hours for edit warring. If you two can't get along, stay away from each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I try as much as I can to be away from the other user, but he follows my edits. I have been out of Wikipedia for some days (and, like another miraculous coincidence, the other user also appered to have been rarely posting in Wikipedia while I was not posting).

The day I returned, the first edit I made in Afro-Brazilian, almost immediatly user "Ninguém" also posted there.[2] It's clear he's speding hours a day waiting a post from me, so that he can immediatly post after me. 90% of "Ninguém"s posts are exclusive to articles I posted recently. The informations in the São Paulo articles, I was the one who posted them (and he knows it) but somebody changed the sources recently, and I did not notice it. I restored the original, "Ninguém" reverted and then I got blocked because of this.

It only can be a miraculous coincidence that he only posts where I post. If it's not a miracle, then it's a case of an user following the edits of another one. Once again, I try not to post where the other user post, but the contrary does not happen (he only edits where I edit, and the days I was out of Wikipedia, he almost did not post here too). Miraculous coincidence or is somebody following my edits, waiting for an opportunity to rise disruptions? Opinoso (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't like your edits. When you make them, he reverts them. I've blocked him for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm neutral and all my edits are sourced. I'm not pro-Italian, or pro-Portuguese or pro any ethnic group. That's the big difference here. His problem with me started when I saw he was trying to give Portuguese a greater importance for Brazil than they really had, based on his personal theories. He even claimed almost all Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, because almost all Brazilians have Portuguese last names. This is insane, because as a colony of Portugal, everybody here received Portuguese surnames, the Indians and the Africans. People from Haiti have French surnames, even though 99% are Blacks.

Then he said his grandparents were of "colonial Portuguese descent". Then I understood why he was trying to inflate the Portuguese influence in Brazil. He cannot admit that the Portuguese influence in Brazil was not as great as he was trying to sell. Brazil is a multiracial country, not a copy of Portugal as the other user wanted to be in the article White Brazilian. Notice that he deslikes Darcy Ribeiro one of the great Braizlian anthropologists. Maybe because Ribeiro shows a multi-ethnic and diverse (and real) Brazil, very different from a copy of Portugal or Europe like some people wish it was.

This is from where his problems with me started. Since them he's been following my edits.

I even stopped editing in White Brazilian, German Brazilian and other articles he was trying to rise discussions and edit-warrings. Unfortunately he keeps following me in other articles. The large difference here is that I do contribute for Wikipedia against vandals and I write big (sourced) texts in several articles, even though last months my contrubutions are being impaired because every week Ninguém forceds me to be engaged in problems with him, even though I try to escape from these problems, sometimes he makes it impossible.

You should, please, tell the other user that there are millions of articles in Wikipedia, and I do not need another user to follow my edits. Also tell him to use sources like me and to be neutral (this is basic), and that I won't follow his edits or even check his contributions page, like he does with me, because I have other things to do. Tell him to leave me alone, and everything is gonna work quite well here. Opinoso (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's easy, don't edit war. Don't call good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And what about the other user only editing where I edit? That's the main problem. Opinoso (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First, the edit warring stops and you stop calling good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On Darcy Ribeiro and figures for incoming Portuguese during the colonial period

In White Brazilian, this edit [3] 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:

[4]

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) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)