User talk:João Felipe C.S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en: Please leave your messages in pt:Usuário Discussão:João Felipe C.S.

Contents 1 please create a new topic 2 Newly Industrialized Country 3 Third World Map 4 NIC 5 BRIMC 6 Wikipedia Policy: CIVIL 7 BRIMC 8 Bosque de Portugal 9 BRICET, Nom. for Deletion 10 NICs 11 Developed country 12 Portal

[edit] please create a new topic

Please create a new topic from other places or simply add into the topic of developing country or the likes if you want to mention future developed countries or entities because those countries you talked about are all basically from developing countries. If these countries are basically from your imagination, please don't add it.

You don't need to rearrange "entities" into the category of non-sovereign states or something because those names were already written in italic form and everybody knows they are not countries.

I hope you can cease the revert-war in this article right now, otherwise somebody later will simply make a request for full protection and thus everyone cannot edit anymore. 72.138.191.63 10:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newly Industrialized Country

I thought NICs were considered NICs also due to the fact that they present a high human development index, and Brazil presents only a medium development index. However, Brazil is not more industrialized than Mexico. Their economy only produced a higher GDP starting in 2001-2002. The size of the economy does not by itself cateogorises Brazil as "more industrialized" than Mexico. Also Mexico is the only Latin American country that was accepted to enter the OEDC more than 10 years ago. However I reverted the map since some authors consider Brazil to be a NIC.AlexCovarrubias 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Nao olhe que voce nao fala muito english) Pensé que los NICS sólo se consideraban como tal cuando presentaban un índice alto de desarrollo humano, y Brasil sólo presenta un índice medio. De cualquier forma, Brasil no es aún más industrializado que México. Su economía sólo pudo producir un PIB más alto que México apenas en 2001-2002. También, México es el único país latinoamericano que fue aceptado en la OCDE más de 10 años atrás. Aún así, he revertido la versión que incluía el mapa porque algunos autores sí consideran a Brasil como un NIC. AlexCovarrubias 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mi error, quise en realidad decir que Brasil "sólo pudo empezar a producir un PIB más alto que México a partir de 2001-2002". Saludos. AlexCovarrubias 04:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third World Map

Los redactores del artículo Third World decidieron ya no utilizar un mapa con los países del Tercer Mundo pues es muy controversial. En su lugar pusieron un mapa de Desarrollo Humano de la ONU. Por favor, ve la Talk Page del artículo. Saludos. AlexCovarrubias 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NIC

Would you please stop doing that in the NIC article? Your tries to note Brazil above all the other nations are just not appropiate for an article. First you alphabetized the list, so Brazil would be first... ok, that is kind of normal. But now, adding info about the BRIC which is NOT an economic nor political group but a economical term, and the G4 thing, it is just ridiculous. The added note about Mexico being the only Latin American county accepted in the OECD it is relevant, as you can also notice S. Korea being noted for that. Please stop editing with biased POV, every time you do that I'd be there to revert it, please don't turn this into a battle. Keep it real and nice. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I only speak spanish, english and italian, I didn't understand your message left in my talk page. If you didn't notice, the countries listed in the article NIC are arranged alphabetically, and I just added the correspondent flags of each country. So I don't understand your claims. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRIMC

Before you edit information you don't like, read the provided and verifiable sources. You can't just erase thing you don't agree with. There's sources, read them. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the only languages I know are spanish, english, italian. I didn't understand a word of your message, but again, you can't just edit info you don't like or agree with. It doesn't matter if "BRIC" is "more known" than "BRIMC". The fact is it does exist and economic experts use it, even if it is not well-known among regular people. NIC artilce is an economic article. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

El término BRIMC es utilizado en las esferas de analistas y expertos económicos desde hace años. No debes editar información perfectamente citada y verificable solo porque no te gusta. Debes terminar tu edición solo porque no te parece. Existen fuentes, no puedes borrar la información sin razón. And besides, this is the english Wikipedia, so I won't be talking again in spanish. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little piece "portuguese" evidence:

SOLUÇÕES DE INVESTIMENTO

O feliz contemplado com o prémio chorudo do Euromilhões tem várias opções para rentabilizar o dinheiro. Uma delas é o depósito bancário a um ano, que proporciona o retorno de cerca de 3,384 milhões de euros em 12 meses (282,5 mil euros por mês, 9416 euros por dia).

Mas estas verbas ficam muito aquém da solução de investimento proposta por João Queiroz, especialista da LJ Carregosa – Sociedade Financeira de Corretagem. Segundo João Queiroz, o bolo de 113 milhões de euros pode render 11,3 milhões de euros anualmente, 941 666 euros por mês, 31 388 euros por dia.

O perito da LJ Carregosa fez um estudo do desempenho de vários activos financeiros, nos últimos dez anos, para chegar ao mencionado rendimento, que ronda os dez por cento ao ano, em média.

Se o prémio do Euromilhões de hoje sair a João Queiroz, o intermediário financeiro pede uma providência cautelar contra ele próprio, como declarou ao nosso jornal. Se o premiado for outro, João Queiroz aconselha a seguinte aplicação de capital (risco moderado): de 45,2 milhões de euros, cinco por cento em depósitos a uma taxa residual para compensar a inflação; 20 por cento em imóveis; 15 por cento em empresas em início de actividade ou com necessidade temporária de liquidez.

Os restantes 67,8 milhões de euros são para aplicar deste modo: 30 por cento em acções; 20 por cento em fundos de investimento Alfa; 30 por cento em obrigações; dez por cento no mercado cambial; dez por cento em mercadorias (principalmente petróleo e ouro).

Fernando Ponte Lourenço, professor de Economia e Sistemas de Informação na Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, adianta uma terceira solução, mais arriscada do ponto de vista financeiro, que passa pela compra de fundos de investimento BRIMC, referentes às economias emergentes.

“São denominados BRIMC: B de Brasil, R de Rússia, I de Índia, M de México e C de China, países que lideram as economias mais rentáveis”, explicou, “capazes por isso de dar uma rentabilidade de 50 por cento ao ano”. “A forma de adquirir fundos deste tipo não é complicada”, disse Ponte Lourenço, acrescentando que qualquer banco “possui uma carteira de fundos alargada”.

“Cada cliente é um caso”, disse ao CM fonte do Millennium, que opera “em Londres, numa das principais praças financeiras mundiais retirando daí benefícios consideráveis para os clientes”.

Desde Maio último que não sai um primeiro prémio do Euromilhões no nosso país. O último deu na Amora (Seixal) e em Penacova, 7,5 milhões a cada totalista.

Ok? Now stop blanking info based in your own personal brazilian biases. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to paste the source [1], now PLEASE stop editing with brazilian biases, since it is very childish from you. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Policy: CIVIL

I won't be leaving you messages again since your last personal attack. It is very obvious you are editing information based in your own personal brazilian bias. I'm reporting you. The last thing I'm gonna say is Wikipedia Policy: CIVIL

México realmente és mejor que Brasil. Una guerra civil en Oaxaca, un trastorno en las elecciones, e en Brasil, las elecciones se decidirón en 4 horas... Andrés Manuel López Obrador prometió tornar México ingobernável. Sin embargo, México és una grande nación... João Felipe C.S 01:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Okey... hace lo que quera. João Felipe C.S 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC) No my dear friend, I don't do "What I want", I do what is appropiate based in Wikipedia's policies. All the information should be cited and verifiable, and the BRIMC exists and it used as much as BRIC, wether you like it or not. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRIMC

Hello, I note that you have attempted to list the above page for deletion. Unfortunately you don't appear to have completed all the work necessary to get your nomination properly listed. I've completed the remaining steps for you but, for future reference, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion contains details of all the steps that you need to take.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You are acting very childish! And it seems you have turned this into a personal battle. The term BRIMC was coined to supersed BRIC by the same person (Jim O'Neil) and institution (Goldman Sachs bank) that created the term BRIC. However, I refrained to change BRIC > BRIMC. Instead I added BRIMC separately from BRIC. You can't edit articles you don't like just because you don't like them. It is wrong and it does not help Wikipedia's accuracy. So please, stop doing that. Besides, will it "hurt" you if BRIMC is there next to BRIC? Of course not. So, stop. I will continue to add BRIMC to the template all times I need to. Sorry. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok now you have gone too far. You claimed that the article for BRIMC had to be deleted and when you saw it was supported for a lot of people, what you do? you create articles for the other economical terms.

I only have to say your attitude is certainly foolish and your bias is so big that omg it hurts. You know nothing about financial terms. The terms BRICS and BRICET exist, of course! and are used but have nothing to do with the original Goldman Sachs Thesis: they were NEVER created by the bank as you claim in your copy-paste from the article I created BRIMC.

However, as I see your attitude has gone too far, I have little hope you would stop. Be sure I will be there to revert any biased information you edit or create. Stop it. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok Joao, I created redirections from BRICS and BRICET to BRIC, but I reverted them. I have to add that the only terms oficially created by the Goldam Sachs Bank's Jim O'Neil are BRIC and BRIMC. You copied and pasted the same words used in the article I created BRIMC and changed it to meet the requirements of the other articles. That is wrong, because that information is totally false. PLEASE, don't act childish, we can work togheter to create better articles. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bosque de Portugal

Can you explain what Bosque de Portugal is? Is it a neighborhood? What makes it famous? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRICET, Nom. for Deletion

I have nomiated the BRICET page for deletion so please voice your opionons at the relevent AfD page. Aussie King Pin 07:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NICs

Joao, don't start another edit war just because you want Brazil to be "listed first". North and South America are different continents under the english usage. The term "America" or "Americas" is not that used in english. We both know you are only doing this because you hate Argentina being listed first and also Mexico. Please, don't act childish again because I will be forced to revert every edit you make. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Joao, in english terms North America and South America are more used and common than "America" or "Americas". In almost all of Wikipedia, continents are refered as that. One big example is the article Regional power that you have edited a lot. Don't revert the article again. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for understanding and for this:

Turkey (European Union candidate)

Obrigado, AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developed country

Althought Brazil GDP (PPP) is the highest in Latin America, and it is part of the BRIMC, it is not expected to become a developed country before Argentina or Mexico. This is due to the fact that its Income Per Capita will remain lower than Arg and Mex and because of the size of the population. However if you insist in adding Brazil, you should list it after Argentina and with a NEUTRAL LANGUAGE , refereced and with no expeculations. Obrigado. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oi Joao. I added again Brazil to the Developed country article. It is simple text with no bias or nationalistic poin of views. And no! I don't "hate" Brazil. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Eu estou muito obrigado pela sua compreensão Joao (So much thank you for your understanding Joao). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

write down whatever you want but remember revert the comprehensive list to the old version. Thanks! 72.138.191.63 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to the Polish guy (83.14.222.106) or 212.51.199.173. He is a trouble-maker and always change the list and put "Taiwan" on the list of country. If you see that, please help me to revert to the older version. Thanks!! 72.138.191.63 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please cease to revert-war in the developed country article. --Peregrine_^AY 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Perhaps you noticed my previous edit summary about overhauling without previous discussion? That is not the way to do this. Propose changes in the talk page; wait for people to comment and make a concerted decision. There are several problems with how you have attempted to go about this: 1) you overhauled the Portal unilaterally, as I mentioned; 2) you created several Portal pages assuming that what you thought should be done was going to stand, which is not necessarily true, and that includes a second "in the news" subpage, which is completely unnecessary and which I'm about to delete, since there's been no response to my comment to present a glimpse of why that page should be kept when there's an existing one with a editing history attached to it. If you had brought this up on the talk page, for instance, I would indicate that this format exceeds the page width, creating a visual problem. Since there's nothing wrong with the current format, and no reason why the Brazil Portal should look exactly like the Mexican Portal, other than aesthetic taste, which is subjective, I see no reason why adopting a format that presents any kind of problem that in not present in the current format. Redux 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)