User talk:Opinoso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Opinoso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

=)

Contents

[edit] == Bahia ==

Your addition of "Although Baía de Todos os Santos" to Bahia looks like a typo or you put it in the wrong place. Grammatically, it doesn't make sense. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Portuguese ethnicity

Hello Opinoso! Regarding you dispute with Dantadd, please let us continue this discussion at Template talk:Portuguese ethnicity. Thank you. The Ogre 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photo of adriana lima

Hi Opinoso, did you take this photo of Adriana Lima yourself? Calliopejen1 03:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

Opinoso, você me ajuda a adicionar templates de citação nas referências do artigo? [1] Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bom, o artigo evoluiu muito, já tem 217 referências, só faltam alguns frases que precisam de fontes (Talk:Brazil#Fourth_GA_review). O que eu havia pedido, era adicionar os Wikipedia:Citation templates, organizando e padronizando as referências. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Quanto à foto sobre arquitetura Ucraniana, realmente foi péssima idéia. Eu realmente esqueci de italianos, portugueses, ect... Já a foto da UFPR, não vejo qual o problema. Há algo melhor para representar uma seção de educação do que uma Universidade Federal? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Bom, é a única Universidade Federal que tem fotos livres e de qualidade. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso, pare de adicionar imagens ao artigo, principalmente na seção de demografia que está sobrecarregada. Para você não começar a reclamar, dizendo que é preconceito e outras coisas, eu removi a imagem sobre arquitetura italiana e adicinei uma imagem a ver com imigração. Por favor, eu te peço. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Brazil

Ah, qual é Opinoso? Qual é o seu problema? Vive em uma favela e por isso tem raiva dessa republiqueta problemática? E por causa de gente assim que esse país não vai pra frente. Preferem se queixar e expor do que resolver os problemas.

  • O que a imagem dois aviões da FAB colocados numa seção sobre Militarismo, tem haver com a queda do Airbus A320 da Tam? O que você quer fazer? Pôr uma foto do incêndio provocado pelo choque do avião numa seção "Foreign relations"?
  • O Lula é corrupto, ex-analfabeto e odiado pela classe média, mas ele é o presidente! Qual o problema de ele aparecer duas vezes? Sendo que uma é só uma representação junta com outras 8 imagens.
  • Acho engraçado isso, se há corrupção, há roubo, nada melhor do que mostrar o criadouro de "sanguessugas". Afinal, você quer só mostrar as coisas ruins desse país.
  • Quanto à imagem dos ministros, qual é o problema? A crise de corrupção é no poder legislativo e não no judiciário.
  • A foto de ucranianos eu já removi, quanto a foto de Alemães, se você não sabe: existe uma porcentagem maior de alemães do que negros efetivamente no Brasil. Sobre amerídios eu preciso rir, eles são a base da origem racial? Incrível como essa grande base têm um pouco mais que o dobro da porcentagem de ucranianos.
  • Imagens ruins sobre São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro? O que você sugere que eu ponha imagens de favelas no lugar?
  • Sobre a imagem da universadide eu já falei com você.
  • E a imagem da favela é melhor do que antiga em termos de beleza. Mostra que não é necessário ser rico para morar num lugar privilegiado pela natureza.

Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso, eu nem queria me dar ao trabalho de responder as "asneiras" que você falou. Pense o que quiser de mim, eu sempre tentei ser amigável com você, mais você nunca segue o espírito Wiki de colaboração. Você me onfendeu, e nem se quer propôs algo para modificarmos no artigo. Contundo eu irei dar uma resposta resumida:
  • Eu não estudo no ensino público, nunca estudei e não teria problema em estudar. Afinal as escolas públicas do sul do país são boas.
  • Não entendi porquê minha capacidade intelectual é tão baixa, só por pensar que você viveria em uma favela e que você acharia que o resto do país fosse igual.
  • A minha capacidade mental parece ser tão baixa quanto a sua no quesito "Genética". Os cientistas estão cansados de dizer que os genes não determinam a cor da pele, e nem a pele a origem. Sim, eu posso ter genes indígenas como milhões de pessoas, posso ter genes africanos como milhões de pessoas, posso ter genes asiáticos como milhões de pessoas e posso ter genes europeus como milhões de pessoas. O que você não entende Opiniso, é que existe genes europeus em quase toda a população também, e quem nem todos são precisamente brancos; o mesmo com genes africanos. Nem indígenas, nem asiáticos são a base da distribuição racial desse país. Europeus e africanos sim.
  • Não sou um branco nórdico, nunca pensei em ser, nunca quis ser; até mesmo porque não foram eles que migraram para o Brasil. Se você quer conhecer minha origem étnica, eu tenho ascendência italiana e alemã. Três dos meus bisavós vieram da Europa, após a Primeira Guerra Mundial. Meu bisavô e o pai dele (que veio da Itália) já morava aqui.
  • Poderia ser pardo, mas sou como os outros 80% da população sulista.
  • Não dá para acreditar, sou apenas eu o racista? Você que fica dizendo: "Você deve ser um garoto pardo que queria ser europeu. É mesmo triste. Você deve ter algum preconceito contra os europeus, ou outras origens. Se você não sabe, racismo não dá cadeia apenas para quem ofende negros, mas todas as etnias e outras coisas, como opção sexual.
Comprimentos; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Quting you :"One exemple: he posted a picture of an unknown woman of Germanic name in the Brazil's article (Ellen Gracie Northfleet, who is this woman?). The thing is that I am Brazilian and I have never seen anything about that woman in my life. And I know most Brazilians do not know who she is. So, why did João Felipe C.S post a picture of her in Brazil's article? Because she is White and blond."
Drop dead, man! It's an English name, and you really should start reading some newspaper Janiovj 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My time to teach you something. My passport says I was born in Arzago d'Adda, Bergamo, Italy. I've lived in Ramsgate, Kent, UK. However, I've lived in Brazil for most of my life and that probably qualifies me as Brazilian. So I've probably been to Europe a lot more time than most people.

As you could see in my userpage, I'm a chemist, not an officeboy.

And is pathetic the only swear word you know? Janiovj 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Then quit talking about it. Get real. Janiovj 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Opinso, sim eu posso ter 10% de genes africanos no meu cariótipo. Mais o que você não entende é que quase 80% dos negros brasileiros possuem muito mais que 20% de genes europeus também. A BBC fez uma pesquisa que aponta, que negros famosos como Ildi Silva tem mais de 70% de genes europeus. [2] Entenda Opinoso, e pare de insistir nisso, por favor. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Had you ever been to Germany, you'd see it's definitely not homogeneous. It's like a Turkey franchise. You're so fun. Unfortunately you'll end up growing. Janiovj 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And in practical terms, what actually do you want to portray in the article? Janiovj 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost two million Turks who are spread over all Germany, and not only BerliN. Who certainly aren't as representative as the 25.000.000 Brazilians of Italian descent. If Santa Catarina can't be considered representative of Brazil, what could be? We'd be left with São Paulo and its 40 million dwellers (mostly, once again, of Italian descent). You're trying to portray a black Brazil, and that's not real and, should I say, it's a very racist vision. A large part of the population is anything but white, and their culture should be valued just as much, if not for it's richness, at least for its representativeness. Janiovj 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Then let's try and make it better. The article is so lagging behind the USA article. Its design could be much improved and I believe those paintings in Afro-Brazilian would look good in Brazil. A gif of our territorial growth and disputes would also be nice. Text density is way to high, there should be more pictures. And some data charts. A ipê-amarelo. Man, there's just so much to do, I don't see why wasting time discussing Brazil's ethnicity. Leave it to the government. Janiovj 20:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Opinoso, eu já disse. Pense o que você quiser... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)




[edit] Discussão

Parece que conseguimos aborrecer outros usuários com nossa "discussão", então vamos tentar resolver o problema.

Você não é obrigado a concordar com minhas idéias nem com as idéias de ninguém. Também não é obrigado a aceitar as estatísticas do IBGE. Por outro lado, não dá para todas opiniões prevalecerem simultaneamente. Para colocar ordem na casa, devemos resolver os conflitos democraticamente, ou seja, o que a maioria dos usuários decidir, é o que será acatado para edição do artigo.

Já entendi perfeitamente bem que você não gosta das estatísticas do IBGE. Conheço os critério empregados pelo instituto, mas ainda que sejam falhos e sujeitos a provocar distorções, o que podemos fazer? Essas são as estatísticas que temos. Se algum dia o IBGE decidir refinar seus critérios, ótimo. O problema é que enquanto isso não acontecer, as estatísticas do IBGE são a base de dados mais segura que temos à disposição. Ainda assim, mesmo que você quisesse ignorar as estatísticas do IBGE para adotar única e exclusivamente os modernos estudos de DNA, a maioria dos editores teria de ter essa preferência, e não é isso que vem acontecendo. Muito pelo contrário, até o momento todos toparam aceitar o IBGE como base para o artigo. Se a maioria dos editores decidiu assim, você não tem o direito de impor , na marra, suas idéias referentes aos estudos de DNA.

Tentei dialogar com você numa boa quando comentei suas oito observações. Até concordei com algumas delas. Para minha surpresa, você respondeu com "pedras nas mãos", com uma série de impropérios destinados à minha pessoa - por não concordar com todas suas idéias, fui taxado de "cego", de "ignorante" (não freqüentou escolas), além de dizer que não tenho qualquer conhecimento de História e Geografia do Brasil.

Como você levou a coisa para o lado pessoal, falarei um pouco de mim. Realmente, não sou nenhum Einstein, e já conheci muitas pessoas bem mais competentes e inteligentes do que eu. Posso, entretanto, dizer que também não sou uma pessoa de tão poucas luzes. Sou formado em uma das melhores faculdades de Direito do Brasil, detentor de duas pós-graduações, com Mestrado em Direito encaminhado, artigos em via de publicação em revistas jurídicas do Paraná. Fui primeiro colocado no CPOR de São Paulo. Aprovado em concursos jurídicos. Planejo ainda fazer uma segunda graduação, provavelmente em Economia. Cresci em Londres, morei em Moscou, e, ao contrário do que você insinuou, conheço ao menos metade das capitais do Estados brasileiros, além de já ter viajado para mais dez países. Admito que sou uma pessoa favorecida, pois cresci num ambiente saudável, no qual nunca me faltou nada. Agradeço a Deus por essa benção. Meu pai tirou seu PhD em Engenharia em Londres e minha mãe é pianista. Minha irmã é agente diplomático. Em suma, tive a sorte de crescer num ambiente favorável e não sou o ignorantão que você está pensando.

Apesar de ter já ter um grau de conhecimento bastante razoável, ainda há muitas coisas que tenho para aprender. Aliás, acho que todas as pessoas sempre podem procurar mais conhecimento e novos aprendizados. Sem dúvida, em algumas áreas você deve saber mais do que eu. Em outras, eu certamente sei mais do que você. Ao invés de um ficar jogando a água do copo na cara do o outro, deveríamos tentar realizar um intercâmbio de informações.

Seria legal se da próxima vez você simplesmente tentasse dizer: "veja, acho que vocês estão errados, pois o IBGE usa critérios precários... há estudos alternativos interessantes, publicados nas revistas científicas x e y... quem sabe não podemos ao menos fazer menção a tais estudos?" Tenho certeza que todos vão prestar muito mais atenção no que você tem para dizer. Ninguém quer ouvir alguém que já chega chutando a porta e dizendo "vocês são todos uns racistas ignorantes, não sabem nada, voltem para a escola, etc, etc, etc", mesmo se o que a pessoa tiver para dizer seja algo interessante.

Seu problema não está no conteúdo do que você diz, mas na forma como você diz.

Talvez eu tenha "mordido a isca" e cometido excessos também. Na verdade, tentei não te agredir pessoalmente, apesar de que em alguns momentos posso ter, de fato, ido um pouco longe demais. Se você se sentiu ofendido com o que eu disse, vou aproveitar o ensejo para pedir desculpas, e se isso não for suficiente, posso pedir desculpas em inglês, publicamente, na talk page. Fica a proposta, entretanto, para você pegar mais leve quando quiser expressar tuas discordâncias na página do Brasil.

Vi, por exemplo, que você já saiu agredindo todos de novo quando saiu a eleição para GA. Acusou todos de não ter escrito quase nada. De fato, eu que escrevi mais ou menos 30-40% do que está no artigo atualmente , penso o mesmo que você. Poucos escrevem, que é a parte mais importante numa enciclopédia. Por outro lado, tem muita gente tentando ajudar dentro de suas possibilidades. Será que era necessário já sair acusando todo mundo num momento de alegria, quando o artigo recuperou o GA? Eu reconheço que muitos andaram ajudando, até o Carlosguitar, com quem não simpatizo muito, deu suas ajudas na reta final. Sei lá cara, faça como quiser, mas seria legal se você tentasse expressar suas discordâncias sem sair taxando todo mundo disso e daquilo.

Enfim, quero deixar bem claro que não sou racista. Reconheço que há grandes negros nos ramos artístico e esportivo, e agora que estão conquistando as mesmas oportunidades, provavelmente em breve passaremos a ter mais negros se destacando em áreas acadêmicas também. Sou branco, tenho olhos azuis, e sou filho de europeus, assim como minha namorada. Nem por isso tenho preconceitos. Um de meus melhores amigos é koreano. Tenho vários amigos pardos. Se não tenho amigos negros, é porque não tive a oportunidade de conhecê-los. Em meus tempos de colégio e de graduação, nunca tive um colega negro. Acho que isso tem de mudar, dou todo o apoio. Minha irmã tem dois amigos homossexuais, um deles inclusive é diplomata. São pessoas super interessantes, que tem trânsito livre em nossa casa.

Então está aí. Espero que você aceite minhas palavras de paz.

Sparks1979 20:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting edits

I don't think it's good to simply revert a good faith edit without adding at least an explanation in the edit summary. A.Z. 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyline of São Paulo

Please, don't change the main picture of the skyline of São Paulo. That picture which you inserted depicts only one and half building in the first plane, and it's not really the skyline of the city. Fsolda 13:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Já que eu percebi que você é brasileiro e, pelo visto, não sabe falar inglês - já que eu te escrevi essa última mensagem e você não respondeu, peço novamente: POR FAVOR, PARE DE FICAR MUDANDO A IMAGEM DA SKYLINE DA CIDADE DE SÃO PAULO NO ARTIGO SEM JUSTIFICATIVA. Aquela imagem NÃO É a skyline da cidade, só mostra alguns prédios. Já que faz tanta questão de manter essa imagem lá, vou movê-la para outro canto da página - explicando que se trata apenas dos edifícios Copan e Hilton. Fsolda 02:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labelling as vandalism

Opinoso pára de por "rvv" e falar coisas como "vandal user" nos edit summaries. Isso é um personal attack quando você sabe que o Felipe não é um vândalo anônimo, mesmo que discorde do que ele faz (como eu também acabei de fazer). Já avisei o Felipe também que ele fez o mesmo.--Dali-Llama 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

72 hours for breaking the 3RR. This is the second block so the length has escalated. Also you displayed absolutely no interest in the views of other editors so I added an extra 24 hours. It won't take many more infractions for you to be blocked indefinitely so I strongly you to adhere to 1RR once your block expires and you return to editing. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, insinuating that people you disagree with are white supremacists [3] will get you nowhere. We're all Wikipedians here, and nothing else matters. commenting on other editors is not an acceptable way of discussing content. Future blatant statements like this may result in a block without warning.--Chaser - T 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your WQA request

Opinoso, let me know if you'd still like to proceed with your Wikiquette alert. I think I may have nipped it at the bud with my reply, but I'd certainly like you get some opinions on what happened if you feel so strongly about it.--Dali-Llama 02:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Nelly Furtado. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Mhking 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racismo

Olá Opinoso, obrigado pela sua participação na discussão. Mas eu queria pedir que participasse de uma discussão no artigo México logo após que a discussão na Talk page do Brasil acabar. Se você dar uma olhada no artigo, AlexCovarrubias e outros apagam imagens de nativos, eliminam seções como crime, problemas sociais, além de fazer um aglomerado de POV. Obrigado pela atenção. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointing

I thought after the last time we “discussed” you would stop being aggressive towards other users. I’m amazed at how eager you get at calling people “racists” just because they happen not to agree with you.

I’m a white person and I’m proud of being white. My father was born in Russia and my mother’s grandparents were born in Germany (3/4) and Portugal (1/4). I’m proud of that too. That does not mean I disrespect other ethnical groups or races. I think all ethnical groups and races are important, equally capable and I believe all can live together sharing the same environment. Above all, I think every person should have the same opportunities, regardless of race, origin, social status, profession, sexual preference or whatever other dubious criteria. I believe in meritocracy, and I think meritocracy depends on the person himself, not on ethnical factors.

In my last message to you, which I wrote in Portuguese, I had already explained quite clearly the view I have just stated in the previous paragraph. I even explained to you I have “brown” (pardos) friends. If I don't have black friends, that's because I haven't met any in my social circle (school, university, office, etc). But you simply ignored everything I said.

I don’t oppose the insertion of pictures of ethnical groups. I defended the demographical mosaic, which should have a distribution of ethnical groups according to IBGE’s census. I know you don’t like IBGE, but every other Brazilian editor does, so I think the opinion of six or seven editors should prevail over the opinion of one. I think we should have a mosaic of celebrities showing 4 pictures of white people, 4 pictures of brown people, 1 picture of a black person, and 1 picture of an Asian person. However, people have stalled on this idea since it’s controvertial and everyone prefered to leave the page without pictures of any ethnical groups. The only pictures of people in Brazil’s article are pictures of authorities. Almost all authorities in Brazil are white due to historic reasons, but that has nothing to do with demography.

Well, you are probably going to continue saying everyone that disagrees with you is a racist, distorting things they say according to your own will. So this will probably be my last message to you, unless you decide to be respectful towards me. I sincerely hope you are not like this in your “real life”, because people normally have difficulties interacting with those who frequently resort to an aggressive attitude like yours.

Good night and good luck.

Sparks1979 00:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mudanças no artigo

Opinoso, eu reverti suas edições. Foi discutido que não colocaríamos imagens representando as raças na seção "Demography" para não gerar polêmica. A seção "Geography" será reformulada pelo User:Sparks1979, depois podemos abrir uma discussão e expressar nossas opniões. Não é por que um usuário mexicano resolveu abrir uma discussão que agora nós vamos sair mudando tudo. Sobre a substituição da imagem do Rio de Janeiro pela imagem de São Paulo eu acho errada, tudo bem que já há várias imagens do Rio, mas por duas imagens de um mesmo lugar no artigo me parece superficial. Tenha calma, discuta, proponha. Obrigado; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reposta

Cara, o que foi que eu te fiz? Por que tu tem tanta raiva de mim? Poxa, você fica inventando tanta coisa que eu nem sei...

  • Trying to sell a fake image of Brazil (rich cities, blond supermodels, cold weather, etc).
Cidades ricas? Sim, afinal elas são extremamente importantes para o país.
Modelos loiras? Onde você está vendo isso no artigo?
Clima frio? Onde eu tento passar a idéia de que o Brasil é um país frio?
  • Of course "some" users are against it, because most players are Blacks.
Eu já disse porque não estou de acordo com a imagem:
Ela tem fonte duvidosa, é de baixa resolução e de péssima qualidade. Além de ser uma foto não muito atual.

Você está me acusando de racismo, não sei o porquê. Se você ainda não percebeu, o User:AlexCovarrubias achou em você um perfeito usuário para fazer as mudanças dele no artigo. Se você pesquisar o histórico dele, verá que ele já se envolveu em muitas disputas e foi bloqueado várias vezes por causa de interesses dele sobre o México. Aquela introdução que você disse que eu apaguei, gerou muita briga estes dias porque era uma cópia exata da introdução da página de usuário dele... Olhe a minha discussão e confirme. O usuário Alex há tempos vem editando artigos relacionados ao poder nas relações internacionais (como Regional power, Newly-industrialized country, Emerging markets, Developed countries, BRIC, BRIMC, etc...) para fazer com que o México fique em uma posição melhor do que a do Brasil. Fazendo que o México seja o "melhor" país da América Latina. Aliás, uma região que ele não gosta muito de usar, segundo ele o México é pertencente ao continente Norte Americano, e apoia a "União Norte-Americana" (seja lá o que for isso). Ele carregou o artigo do país dele de POV, frases como The country has the largest Hispanic-American economy... Na hora de falar sobre posição política, geográfica e até histórica o artigo menciona o México como um país norte-americano, mas não ficaria bem colocar: Mexico is the third largest economy of North America ou Mexico is the poorest country of North America. Uma frase melhor seria: Mexico is the second largest economy of Latin America, mas afinal, o México tem que ser melhor que o Brasil. Isso tudo está me deixando bastante inquieto, eu queria que você me explicasse detalhadamente quais das minha atuais edições transparecem uma idéia racista ou falsa. Tentarei entrar em um consenso. Obrigado; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Queria que você desse uma respostas às minhas discussões abertas aqui... Obrigado. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah Opinoso, você entendeu muito bem sim... Se for o caso de tamanha descompreensão, você pode traduzir isto para o inglês para mim:

Todos vocês podem olhar isso?

Estas são discussões anteriores. Apenas olhem... Obrigado. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks in Brazil's talk page

Hi, I noticed that recently you made some personal attacks in Brazil's talk page, accusing some users of being racists (check here). I request you to stop doing that or, as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy, a block for disruption may be necessary in response to persistent gross incivility. Another administrator, Chaser, already warned you on September 7, 2007 (check here), to stop making personal attacks, or you may be blocked. --Carioca 02:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making personal attacks. 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.

Please, stop making personal attacks, as you made here. --Carioca 15:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MarginalPinheiros.jpg

Opinoso, pela qual razão você continua colocando esta imagem no artigo Brazil? Esses dias você tirou a foto de um jaguar dizendo que eu substituí uma imagem sem discussão, e o que você está fazendo? Além disso, ela não tem perfil enciclopédico, por ter aqueles efeitos de borda. Ela até é legal, mas é de péssima qualidade. Descubra uma que realmente seja boa e coloque, assim como eu coloquei a imagem da Rocinha. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 01:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting--both of you. Put both pictures up on the talk page and submit it to a vote.--Dali-Llama 01:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croats, Armenians, and the Celts of Latin America

You removed an edit I made refering the prescence of Croats, Armenians and people of Celtic orgin in the White Latin American heritage. You claimed that they don't have a large prescence. Sorry to inform you that you are wrong. Latin America received a large mass of immgrants from Croatia during the late 19th century and early 20th century. Most Croat settled in the the Southern cone of South America (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay), but Croats also settled in Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, and Mexico. There are about 440,000 people of Croatian descent living in Argentina, about 130,000 in Chile, and 127,765 in Brazil. Many Croatians rose to Prominance in Latin American society. Nestor Kirchner, President of Argentina, is half-Croat. You also have Pedro Sevcec (an Uruguayan born journalist for Telemundo),Sandra Mihanovich (an Argentinian singer),Ignacio Serricchio (a Argentine-American actor. Note: his real surname is Šerić), Leonor Oyarzún Ivanovic (wife of Chilean ex-president Paticio Aylwin) Radomiro Tomic (a prominent politican of Chile), Francisco Orlich Bolmarcich (President of Costa Rica 1962-1966), Saby Kamalich (a Peruvian actress), and Gabriela Španić (a Venezuelan actress). The number of Croats in Latin America is about the same on the number of Irish in Latin America. If Croats are not recognized, so shouldn't the Irish.

For the Armenians, most came to Latin Ameirca during World War I, when Turkey was committing a brutal genocide against the Armenians. There numbers are small, but there are more Armenians in Latin America that Turks (why weren't the Turks removed?). Armenians settled in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica. Argetina (130,000 people), Brazil (40,000), and Uruguay (19,000) have the largest number of Armenians. Armenians also contibuted to Latin Ameircan society. David Nalbandian (an Argentinian Tennis player) and Martín Adjemián (an Argentinian actor) are well known Armenian-Latin Americans.

And Last for the Celts, Celts are a branch of Indo-European peoples (like the Slavic, Germanic, and Latin peoples). The Celts branch include the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, Manx, and Galicians. In Latin America, Galicians are listed as Spanish, Scots are listed as English/British, and the Bretons are listed as French. The Celtic immigration other than the Irish, Galician, Scots and Breton are small but they have created unique settlement in Latin America. There are the Welsh in Patagonia, and the Conish in the Mexican state of Hidalgo.

Sorry for this being long, but there are a large prescense of Croats, Armenians, and Celts in Latin America. Their heritage should be recognized, so I undid your edit. Lehoiberri 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you didn't read this, my proof that their contirbution is important. Since it is not important in your mind, so I removed the Irish and the Turks in the heritage section because they are an insignificant minority, too. The Irish and Croats contribution to Latin America are quite equal, and there are more Armenians than Turks in Latin America. Lehoiberri 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votação sobre Template

Olá
Você poderia votar na Talk page do Brazil, falando sobre qual template você acha mais adequado para usar nos artigos dos Estados do Brasil? Obrigado — Guilherme (t/c) 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil article

Opinoso, me ajuda a fazer umas alterações no artigo Brasil? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for making personal attacks again

Hi. I blocked you once because you made personal attacks. However, you made again more personal attacks (check here). As you have already been blocked for making personal attacks in the past, and is aware that personal attacks are not allowed in Wikipedia, but still insists in making personal attacks, I blocked you for 48 hours. I strongly suggest you to read this official Wikipedia policy and stop making personal attacks. --Carioca 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making personal attacks. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Carioca 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Adriana lim a.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Adriana lim a.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gisele Bündchen

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gisele Bündchen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Please discuss on the article's talk page before you change the picture in the article again. Thank you. SWik78 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gisele Bündchen

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Gisele Bündchen, you will be blocked from editing. Stop changing the picture. Discuss it on the article's talk page.SWik78 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gisele Bündchen

I hardly think I am vandalizing your page by posting a warning about your constant reverting of pictures. The procedure really should be to discuss on the article's talk page rather than just change it to a picture that you like better and justify it by saying in the quote summary reverted ugly picture to a better one. A better [picture], as you say, or the best picture is not the one that looks the best in someone's opinion. The best picture is one on which most people agree to keep in the article. My warning, however, probably should have included the fact that since yesterday you reverted the same picture on the following articles as well:

Since January 1 you have made no other edits to any article other than reverting that particular picture.

As far as Cantarevolare (talk · contribs) is concerned, you're right about him deserving a warning about this as well if he does it again. I didn't give him a warning today because he had made no edits today. You are, however, incorrect when you say that he is the only one changing your picture. You have reverted edits by the following users since yesterday:

Just to clear things up, I have no opinion on Giselle's pictures and do not have a favourite one, which is the reason that I never changed your or anyone else's choice of a profile picture of her, so I'm satified with any picture whatsoever on her article as long as it meets Wikipedia's image criteria. The reason I gave you the warning is that you are engaging yourself and others in an edit and revert war by changing the page and reverting others' edits the way you do. Technically, you could have already been blocked according to the 3 revert rule for the 3 reverts you made to Giselle's article starting on January 1 at 04:50 and ending on January 2 at 02:17 but I thought it would be more appropriate to issue a warning rather than to request a block this time because I am still assuming good faith from you in your edits.

So I will ask you to, please, discuss anything you don't agree with before you just arbitrarily change it to your own preferred version. Those kinds of reverts can prove to be very disruptive because, as you've probably found out so far, not everyone agrees with you on which picture is Giselle's best looking picture and if everyone was just allowed to act like that Wikipedia's articles could become very disrupted.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and I truly hope you don't take this personally.

SWik78 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Hello, you appear to be in an edit war involving the article Vanessa Anne Hudgens. DO NOT REVERT THE ARTICLE AGAIN. If either of you revert it again, you will be reported in violation of the 3RR. Please continue the discussion here: Talk:Vanessa Anne Hudgens#Heritage and once a consensus is formed, we can edit the article to the correct form. Thank you. --Dan LeveilleTALK 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iberians and Portugal

Viva Opinoso! Vou escrever em português para ser mais explícito. Não, não perdi a cabela (calma!). Verifica por exemplo: Mattoso, José (dir.), História de Portugal. Primeiro Volume: Antes de Portugal, Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1992. Os Iberos são um conjunto de povos do lesta da Península Ibéria que falavam Ibero - isto em inglês diz-se os Iberians falavam a Iberian language. Estes povos não habitavam o território português - o seu artigo diz mesmo "The Iberians were a set of peoples that Greek and Roman sources (among others, Hecataeus of Miletus, Avienus, Herodot and Strabo) identified with that name in the eastern coast of the Iberian peninsula at least from the 6th century BC". O problema aqui é que não existe nome para as outras populações não-Indo-Europeias Ibéricas (o que não quer dizer Iberas), a não ser para a civilização Tartéssica (Tartessus) da Andaluzia (e à qual os Cinetes ou Cónios do Algarve poderiam ser aparentados, pelos menos antes de terem sido celtizados pelos Célticos do Alentejo) e os Aquitanos Proto-Bascos nos Pirinéus, ou então, se levares o Avieno à letra, o território do ocidente peninsular era habitado pelos Oestriminis que foram conquistados pelos Saephe, Ophis e Dragani (o que provavelmente é um relato das migrações Indo-Europeias). E se em português se consegue distinguir bem entre Ibero e Ibérico, o mesmo não se passa em inglês. Nunca se falou Ibero em Portugal, ou se se falou não o sabemos (nota que a linguagem Tatéssica não é aparentada ao Ibero, sendo um outro isolado linguístico). Além do que, para o período em que os Iberos são identificados pela primeira vez, podemos dizer que o território português era habitado pelos seguintes grandes grupos linguísticos: Galaicos, Lusitanos, Célticos e Cónios. Não podemos saber mais, embora saibamos que o território era obviamente ocupado antes das migrações Indo-Europeias (desde que o homem moderno aqui chegou, há cerca de 35 mil anos, aqui se refugiou, e daqui da Península, repovou o resto da Europa Atlântica - vê o artigo sobre o Haplogrupo R1b). Pelo que o que podemos dizer com certeza é que o território português era habitados por povos não-Indo-Europeus aos quais se virem juntar povos Indo-Europeus (Proto-Celtas e Celtas). Mais nada. Dizes-me para citar uma referência. Pois bem, cita-me uma referência que diga inequivocamente que os Iberos, falantes da língua Ibera habitavam território português! Vou portanto reverter a tua reversão da minha alteração ao texto. Obrigado. The Ogre (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dá uma olhadela neste Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC). The Ogre (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Talians.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Talians.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Italianos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Italianos.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 93,096 million

Do you really know how large is a population of 93,096 million?

93,096 million isn't 93.096 million=93,096,000=noventa e três milhões e noventa e seis mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pularoid (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] white latin america

my friend if you look white you are white i look white and am american but maybe somewhere down the line i have a non white ancestors but i look white so there for i am same thing in latin america,in other words just because you cant trace there whole ancestry does not mean they cant be consuidered white, also there is no such thing as a one drop rule in latin america like in north america and there is no such thing as a pure race includeing the caucasian race you just add to the ignorance that everybody in latin america is just a mutt and are the reason we even need to have articles like this--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusing others of vandalism

Hello!

I'd like to ask you to please be careful when accusing others of vandalism the way you have done to Domaleixo (talk · contribs). As per the official policy on vandalism, these examples are specifically listed as not vandalism:

  • Unintentional misinformation: Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.
  • Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.

Yourself and him do not agree on some issues in the Rio de Janeiro article and that's fine. However, neither one of you should be accusing the other of vandalism since both of you are contributing in good faith. One thing that you should be avoiding at all cost is edit warring because that disrupts Wikipedia without contributing anything of value. It is better to have wrong information in an article that to have two or more users battling over one sentence and changing it every 5 minutes.
I am also leaving a message for Domaleixo (talk · contribs). I am asking both of you to talk this over on your respective talk pages or, prefferably, on Talk:Rio de Janeiro before doing any more editing on that article. Otherwise, if you continue edit warring, I will have to report both of you and ask that you be temporarily blocked from editing.
Thanks for your time and please don't take this the wrong way. Let me know if you have any questions for me.
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


_____

Where are you from? Janiovj (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User Mhsb

I warned Mhsb to stop following your edits, and also to stop reverting all your edits. I suggest you to start a discussion in the article's talk page when he reverts your edits, as this will prevent an unnecessary edit war, and also will be possible to reach a consensus. You and Mhsb are disagreeing in two articles, Gisele Bündchen and Model (person), so I suggest you both to find a third opinion. Also, stop calling Mhsb a vandal. He is wrong following your contributions, but this is not vandalism. --Carioca (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just posted on the Admin noticeboard regarding Mhsb. I noticed the recent discussion regarding this user and I just want you guys opinion on the subject. Thanks. --James Bond (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Thank you for your report at WP:AIV in re: Lehoiberri (talk · contribs). The user was warned to refrain from personal attacks, and that further edits of this sort could result in a block. If there are further edits that violate policy, they will be dealt with - but, in the interim, I've removed the report from the AIV page, as a block was not appropriate in this case. Please feel free to leave me a message with any questions. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

You have been mentioned on the administrators noticeboard.Kww (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Argentina

I read with interest your comments regarding Italian and European influence in Argentina. Your perspective is very welcome, as you make some very valid points and help keep the article "real"! I have never been to Brazil (hopefully soon), but I have been to many Latin American countries: you cannot deny Argentina "feels" more south European than the others but, you are 100% correct, it is most definitely closer to the rest of Latin America than to Europe. As for Argentine Spanish, I am not fluent in Spanish but the Spanish I heard there did "sound" Italianized to my ears. I don't mean to exagerate- it was not as though the Spanish was an Italian hybrid, only that in general people had the same (or very similar) intonation and cadence you find in Central and Southern Italy. This was not the case in other countries I visited, including Mexico, Venezuela, Chile and, of course, Spain itself. When I read the reference to the study linking it to Neopolitan, it made a lot of sense to me. Dionix (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Opinoso: Regarding Brazil, you are correct in that I had removed the reference, but I'm still not sure it supports the statement you are making. My understanding of Portuguese is limited, but "os imigrantes do sul eram morenos" does not imply the Venetians are not (many are); and it doesn't support the statement that Northern Italians were preferred under the "Whitening project". Am I missing something in the translation? Dionix (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Opinoso an agreement

Please Opinoso, let's reach a resolution to the matter about the main picture and bring Gisele back for model article. I suggested "Gisele Bundchen4.jpg" or "Gisele Bundchen6.jpg". What do you think about? Please, answer on model (person) discussion page! I wait your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikipedista (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calling people racist, edit warring

Opinoso, I will ask you most politely to please stop accusing other people of racism on article talk pages as you did here and here as well as in edit summaries as you did here. Whether you believe your edits/reverts were justified or not, people don't like to be called racist and insistance to label them or their actions as racist has only negative effects in trying to reach a consensus. You have been warned many times before about making personal attacks and you have been blocked twice for the same issue so don't expext any leniency from the community if you keep it up. I know nothing about Ukrainians of Brazil, the contentious article in question, but yourself and Faustian (talk · contribs) need to reach a consenus on the article's talk page and stop the ongoing revert war. Please don't get offended by this but, at the same time, don't take this lightly. If you continue calling editors racist I will report your actions to WP:ANI and ask for an administrator to review your edits and take appropriate action.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso. I think the point here is not to defend by attacking. To call the user racist can be see as negative. I agree with you and I think his over-editing (which is creating war) is in fact offensive and I do seem it as racist because of his ideology, but mostly due to ignorance. You see, certain people are not used to the level of multiculturalism that we have in Brazil. I suggest we involve users from the Brazilian task-force and portal, particularly the ones that helped create articles such as Italian/Brazilians, Japanese/Brazilians, African/Brazilians, and so on. --Pinnecco (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on Ukrainians of Brazil

Please note that I have started a discussion at WP:ANI on your involvement in the recent edit war on the above article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ukrainians of Brazil. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety talk 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have clearly violated 3RR, and are engaging in a clearly disruptive edit war on Ukrainians of Brazil and if you continue to do so you will be blocked. I encourage you instead to take your disagreements to the articles talk page (even if it means allowing content you disagree with to be left on the article for a short period of time) and not in article space. There are so many better ways to deal with situations like this, such as mediation, noticeboards. I know that your intentions are good and ultimately want to do what you think is best for the project (ie providing correct sourced info), but you must understand that the way you are doing it is not good for the project at all and nor does it look good to readers. (Note: I have also warned the other party involved in the edit war). Thank you for cooperating, Tiptoety talk 23:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nilo Peçanha

In the Brazilian Wikipedia, Nilo Peçanha is described as the first (I would say the only) Brazilian mulatto President.

During all his political career, he was accused of being a mulatto. The most famous are the accusation written in the letter scandal of Marechal Hermes government.

May he was a dark Portuguese, but I prefer to believe that he like the Barão de Cotegipe, someone that could be recognized as a mulatto, but who hide his African ancestors. By the way, the Barão de Cotegipe was AGAINST slave emancipation. Also, who proved that Machado de Assis had African ancestors?

--Quissamã (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just mind about the message dates and you´ll realize that I don´t discuss with you since May. So, I´m not bothering you, or you are feeling alone. I don´t know why you became so mad, but reading some arguments here I can realize.
--Quissamã (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning

Opinoso, I am giving you a final warning to follow WP:CIVIL. You were clearly previously warned about this above, yet I find comments such as "Stop vandalism", "Please, stop watching Hollywood movies", and "We are not using your segregationist ideas. Give it up." Firstly, it is incivil to describe someone else's edits as vandalism when they are not. Secondly, you need to stop making negative comments directed towards other users. As you probably already know, WP:NPA asks us that we comment on content (i.e. the article itself) and not the contributors who are editing these articles. Also, this is totally inappropriate. I'm referring to the sentence, "Any idiot who knows about him knows his father was descended from free slaves and his mother was a Portuguese washerwoman from the Azores." So, please consider this a final warning to respect WP:CIVIL - the next time you violate it or a similar policy you will be blocked. Khoikhoi 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian articles

You asked why I uremoved your deletion request from the Brazil-related articles. As I explained in the edit summary, once a prod is contested (that is, once someone removes the prod from an article), the article is no longer eligible for the "proposed deletion" process. If you wish to have the articles deleted, you need to nominate them for deletion with the AfD process. This is explained in WP:PROD, under "how it works". Since the articles have previously been proposed for deletion using the {{prod}} process, they are no longer eligible for deletion in this way. The reason that another editor removed your original prod is that you did not include a deletion reason (as explained in WP:PROD, you need to include a deletion reason as an argument to the prod template, as in {{subst:prod|reason}}). The {{prod}} process is for uncontroversial deletions, which is why any editor can contest a proposed deletion by removing the {{prod}} tag, at which point the deletion has to be discussed at WP:AFD. Klausness (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)