User talk:João Do Rio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, João Do Rio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  howcheng {chat} 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removal of tag from University of Texas at Austin

You removed the {{Verylong}} tag from University of Texas at Austin. That is fine as I added the tag only as a heads-up. However, you summararized, "Removed "very long" tag. Article is comparable in length to, and in many cases shorter than, other articles on major universities, public and private." The addition and removal of such tags is not based on what is being done in other articles. It is based on Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Article size). If the article becomes greater than 60KB, I will again tag it and the tag should not be removed until the problem is addressed. For the time being, I added the tag to the article's talk page just so people can keep it in mind when editing. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! --Wordbuilder 13:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona

What's your obsession with pointing out that Arizona has not made the rose bowl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.142.95 (talk • contribs)

I have no such obsession. I'm simply reverting your unjustified removals of content. I don't really care at all what it is that you're removing, just that you're removing factual and relevant information without any justification and with no attempt to effect a change in consensus on discussion pages. Perhaps the appropriate question would be: What is your "obsession" with removing this information? You may not like the reality of the information, but Wikipedia does not exist in order for you to eliminate factual and relevant content simply because you wish that it were untrue. Additionally, why have you also repeatedly vandalized pages pertaining to Arizona State athletics?
You have accrued very little credibility as an editor to this point, given the nature of your edits, and if you continue altering pages in this fashion, you will ultimately be blocked from editing. ~ João Do Rio 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I completely agree with you Joao Do Rio. This person's vandalism of the ASU athletics page is really out of control some times, talk about extreme fans. Oh, and mr.vandal, anytime you make some stupid edit you ASU's page I'll change it back, so you might as well not since there will be no point.Alexdragon 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


so tell me how pointing out asu's 2006 basketball and football record is vandalism? alexadragon - my answer to you is likewise. as soon as you stop vandalizing uofa sites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.172.67 (talk • contribs)

Your edits to ASU's pages have contained factual mistakes and unencyclopedic commentary, and have shown a lack of neutral point of view. Feel free to study the pages linked by howcheng at the top of my user page to learn more about these and other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Finally, carry out your further communications with Alexdragon on his user page, not mine. ~ João Do Rio 02:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to use your page like this Joao, But I just want to make it clear that I NEVER vandalized or will vandalize U of A's pages. I don't recall making any edits to them at all. I would use this person's talk page to communicate, but it seems like this is a user who constantly changes his IP address, or at least uses various different locations to access wikipedia (I doubt multiple users would continue doing the same edits). Again, sorry to use your page like this Joao.Alexdragon 04:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize. You're a legitimate editor, and I understand that his accusations against you are false (another thing that will facilitate his banning if he continues his current behavior). ~ João Do Rio 05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Rose Bowl Game page is finally protected, hopefully that "person" won't be attacking ASU's page for revenge. Thanks for helping me (or, letting me help YOU) keep the ASU and Rose bowl pages clean! Alexdragon 04:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Thanks for helping out. If he keeps up his act on the ASU pages, I suppose we can get those pages semiprotected as well. ~ João Do Rio 04:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UT All-time team

University of Texas Alltime team, was as noted, the Austin American Statesman, 2005. The date of the article was Septermbr 9. The team was chosen by a panel of experts, headed up by the sports editors of the paper.

Yeah, I was hoping you had a working link for that article. Doesn't look like the AAS has viewable online archives that date back that far. Thanks. ~ João Do Rio 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College Baseball Project

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College baseball related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college baseball WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you!

Thanks. I didn't know about this. ~ João Do Rio 00:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aggie maroon

Hi, thanks for changing the Aggie maroon color to the correct maroon shade. I knew the maroon shade was "Pantone 505," and after trying to find the hex code equivalent to that, I came upon both #600000 and #6C1420. About half of the websites I looked up said Pantone 505 is the equivalent of the former hex code, while the other half said it is equivalent the latter. So I ended up choosing the darker shade, #600000, since it more closely resembled the one used on the Athletics website. After you reverted the change on the Athletics page, I went back to the Trademark website, and came upon this PDF document. The color used there more closely resembles #6C1420, i.e., the one you added. Anyhow, sorry about reverting your edit! BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. My understanding is that the official TAMU colors are actually in something of a state of flux at the moment as your university devises some clearer, more uniform branding standards, but #6C1420 appears to be the current official hex code, according to the webpage I referenced in my summaries (which I found through the main TAMU website). I've been told by an Aggie friend that the colors may actually be changing somewhat again soon, so we might have to switch the codes again at a later date. ~ João Do Rio 22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UT Nuclear Plant

I see that you reverted my correction of your edit. Your edit summary "Reverted: No, that part is not sourced. Look at the citation provided; it's from 1989. The part of the sentence needing a citation refers to an incident that occurred in 1992. It needs a citation." shows that you don't understand the issue. The article clearly states that the UT reactor went critical on that date. Going critical is not an incident in the sense that something went wrong. Going critical is a term that refers to the reactor being started. It stems from the fact that nuclear reactors depend on chain reactions. As the article clearly makes this statement, I am removing your fact tag. TheMindsEye 19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm aware of the meaning of "going critical." "Event" would have been a better word choice here (though "incident" was not incorrect). The article may make a "clear statement" about the event of going critical in 1992, but that particular statement is not sourced. The article cited (from 1989) supports the clause regarding "local reports on its safety." I will include an additional citation. ~ João Do Rio 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{uw-v4}}

Hi, Please discuss any further changes that you wish to make on the above template at WP:UW. There are 140 user warning templates which have all been harmonised, and making changes to only one template goes against the goals of this project. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. Khukri 06:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Push for FA on UT article

Hello João, I hope you are doing well. I am hoping to submit 2005 Texas Longhorn football team soon for Featured Article consideration. My one prior success has given me some idea of what might still be needed. The article has already had a peer review and has made it to GA status. I am re-reading it and proof-reading it from top to bottom this week.

Since you have recently posted on its talk page, I am letting you know in case you have any other suggestions. Best, Johntex\talk 21:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, how do you think the offensive scheme should be described in the 2007 Texas Longhorn football team article? It currently says "spread option". I have nominated the article for GA. Johntex\talk 01:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay, Johntex. I've responded here on your talk page. ~ João Do Rio 03:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi João, thanks for the reply. Please don't worry about the timing at all. It has been less than a week, sometimes it takes me much longer than that to reply.
Concerning replies, most people reply at the other person's Talk page. I think that is best because then the recipient gets that orange box to let them know they have a message. And we all love orange, right! Some people like to keep the conversation all in one place, but as a general rule those people will make that as a request at the top of their talk page. Sometimes I just put a copy in both places because disk space is cheap.
Thanks for the kind words about the UT articles. I feel like we have done some good work, but we are losing ground to A&M (now with at least 2 FAs) and OU (nearly there, last I checked).
While there is always room for improvement, I think the 2007 Texas Longhorn football team easily meets GA standards in terms of quality. The only question is philosophical/procedural. It may fail on the basis of the season not being over. Opinions seem to be split on this, so it will really depend on the luck of the draw in terms of who decides to review the article. My personal opinion is that the GA standard is less rigorous and a topic like this should qualify. For FA I would agree that the season would need to be complete.
The 2005 Texas Longhorn football team is harder. I'm still slugging through it to try to get it to FA quality. Every time I come back to it, I notice ways to improve it. It is very difficult to comply with all the guidelines of the Manual of Style. For instance: to find every instance of a missing "non-breaking space" ( ), check every reference format, etc.
I hope to get there in a few more days. If we get it into top form and nominate it by mid-August then there is a chance of it passing FA before the football season starts, which would be cool. Johntex\talk 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)