User talk:Redux/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT. THIS IS AN ARCHIVE PAGE

[edit] Image:Brasil_Bandeira.gif

You may have noticed that I changed the tagging back on your restored image. I understand your desire to have the flag on your userpage, but can't we find a free alternative? Per the Berne Convention creative works are copyright by default, there doesn't need to be an explicit copyright claim made. Without explicit permission or fair use we can not use copyrighted works, without a source and without use in an article we can't claim fair use. That the authort might have intended to make the work free for all and that copyright of this image is already widely ignored elsewhere is immaterial... Wikipedia needs to maintain a high level of conformance to preserve it's freedom and to prevent resources from being wasted in a legal dispute. I hope you can appricate that there is nothing personal in removing unfree images. Thank you for your understanding. --Gmaxwell 18:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course everything is automatically copyrighted, I know that. The question would be whether the image could be used under fair use or not. What has been indicated in the discussion I started at the Village Pump is that if it's not being used in an article, we can't even claim fair use, which is an interesting point, I had not considered this possibility.
But rest assured, I did not take anything personally, if I had, I'd have started a RfC, but that was never a possibility. I always give Admins the benefit of the doubt, at the very least, since nobody becomes an Admin by chance. But the logs, which aren't as descriptive as the discussions, seemed to indicate that it might have been a misunderstanding caused by a mistagging that had led to the deletion of the image without much looking into. And two more factors: the log summary said "speedy", and, coincidentally enough, the Admin who had carried the deletion was relatively new to the job, and it's not that difficult to forget that articles/images marked for speedy deletion might still have been mistagged — and to complicate further, the tagging had been done by a bot, which means that it was just a software following a program, not a person considering what (s)he was doing.
As it turns out, the situation is a little trickier, and I'm trying to set things straight even as I write this message. If the image indeed merits deletion, I will delete it myself on the spot. I've deleted images and articles that others had uploaded and that shouldn't be on the website. So naturally, if I screw up and upload something that shouldn't be here (and I uploaded this image back when I was still a newbie myself), I have no problem with having it deleted just the same.
Thanks for taking the time to bring the subject to my attention. Regards, Redux 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to be careful with the images on user pages only, and have left them when there has been any potential issues (retagging them so they go off the speedy delete categories if necessary), but the one in question seemed to me particularly difficult as there was no original source, and it is rather difficult to verify "effective public domain". Also images that are widely available can always be reuploaded. The no fair use outside of article space rule is more policy than legal - I think there would be cases that could be justified in theory, but free images are better. Justinc 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You are very right about it being more about our policy than about the law. I found no justification on the letter of the law that would indicate that a user page, not being an article and thus somehow not "informing", or "educating", would not be covered by fair use. And indeed, it was easy to re-upload the image, but if I had found out that there was an issue at stake, I'd have talked it out before uploading the image again (or not). Well, as I said, I'll delete it again myself if need be. Thanks. Redux 01:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flamengo's supporters

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit made by an anonymous user on the CR Flamengo article. If you want to add the number (or percentage) of supporters on the Flamengo article, check this link. There are two different 2004 surveys. Regards, Carioca 21:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I understand and agree with your revert and with your concerns. It is better not to add the supporters number (or percentage) on the article, as we can't be sure of how many supporters Flamengo (or any other club) exactly (or even approximately) have, as there is no reliable way of counting that (as you said, a serious nationwide survey is not viable). I also agree that, maybe, it would be safe to state that Flamengo has one of the largest club fan bases in Brazil (however, it is better not write that Flamengo has the largest fanbase, as this can cause revert wars between Flamengo and Corinthians' supporters). Keep up the good work. Regards, Carioca 21:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. If you want, feel free to add the info that Flamengo has one of the largest fanbase in Brazil. It is better to add this info in the lead section of the article, or even in the trivia section. Regards, Carioca 19:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BAP

Hi, Redux! Discussion at barnstar and award proposals seems to be at a standstill. Do you think this warrants a call for action? Thanks, Sango 123 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! I've been bugging people with these, so here's one for you. :)

Hi, Redux. Discussion on this award at WP:BAP has been at a standstill for almost two months. Since you were previously involved in the decision-making, please consider reviving the discussion. If no attempts are made within a week, it will be archived. Thanks, Sango 123 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland portal and UK portal

If you have a look at the two portals, you'll see that Portal:Ireland describes itself as being about the island, not the state, whilst Portal:United Kingdom is about the state. Yes, it's a curious state of affairs, but to me it's best to let those facts stand above others. Steve block talk 13:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new collaboration project

You'd you be interested in participating in a new Collaboration project that aims at translating good and featured articles in the French Wikipedia to English (much like the Spanish Translation of the Week)? I'm trying to see if there's enough users interested in this project before creating it. Thank you. CG 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive response about this new collaboration. An ongoing discussion is held here. Feel free to participate. CG 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] custom country-specific category linkbars for portals

I'm not sure exactly to what you are referring. But I have been placing a new bar which includes links specific to the country for which the portal is about. See Portal:Australia as an example.

Also, List of lists articles, especially those for which I am the primary if not only caretaker, I took the liberty of adding the other bar back into. Please examine the history lists on those articles.

Now please explain, how am I disrupting anything? I took your initial comments very seriously, and have not placed the bar in overview articles. The bar is very specifically targetted at portals, categories, and lists of lists. The precedent for this sort of thing is on the Wikipedia main page as well as on the big eight categories and portals. This bar is an evolutionary variation of the one used on the main page.

Someone removed the bar from the country portals, because it was not specific enough, but he left Australia and New Zealand intact, presumably because those had customized bars (predating my bar) with country-specific category links. He also left the bar on non-country portals. I took this as a cue to place country specific bars on the country portals. The links go specifically to the categories related to that country.

So, here is my question: may I please place the country-specific bar on the remainder of the country portals? If the users/caretakers of those pages do not like the upgraded bar, they will be sure to remove it. But the identical bar has already been tested on Australia and New Zealand, with no complaints. Please let me know what you decide.

Sincerely, Go for it! 13:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re.:Images at Flamengo article

Hello. Actually as those images are present in almost every website concerning Flamengo's history, I thought they were copyright free. Now I see they probably are not. I'll be removing them, thanks for your help. Lesfer ☎ 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't even know how or where to start researching about these images copyrights (lol). Feel free to delete all of them. Once again, thanks for helping. Lesfer ☎ 21:58, 18 December 2005

[edit] Boo

--Zach (Sound Off) 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re.:Flamengo again

Hey Redux. At some moment I thought it was a pretty good idea - if you check the article history, you'll be able to see that firstly I hadn't even fixed the flags in there - but as Wikipedia is a world wide, not exclusively brazilian, I've made my mind about having the flags in the article. I think of non-brazilian users who might want to take a look at the article. Regards, Lesfer ☎ 14:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Barnstar

I hereby award you this Barnstar Barnstar for your tireless efforts of improving Wikipedia by creating and awarding barnstars. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French Collaboration Project

French Collaboration Project Wikipedia:French Collaboration Project is in its final stage before being launched. I invite you to give your opinon in its talk page, and add yourself into the participant list. Thank you. CG 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure for admission of new states

Redux, I put a comment in the U.S. States talk page but I changed the topic heading to be more descriptive. RickReinckens 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

hahaha... no problems, I wasn't exactly shooting for the support record. Thanks for the congrats, I'm sure you'll see me deleting the Main Page sometime soon. :-) --D e ath phoenix 03:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pitchforks? That reminds me of the time I was in that nasty accident, then I was in a nice warm place of fire and brimstone, where little red guys were running around sticking pitchforks at my butt... --D e ath phoenix 03:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User en-0

Hi. There are a couple of suggested changes at Template talk:User en-0 (one is mine, of course), which cannot implemented because the template is protected. Maybe that talk page was not the proper place to discuss changes? - Liberatore(T) 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re.: Award

Hey! Thank you for the barnstar! :) Regards, Lesfer ☎ 20:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at Village Pump

Hey there! I just added a reply to your post at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Encyclonews. Well, I would understand if you are bored from the discussion (happens to me sometimes), but could you at least tell me what conspicuity is?? BTW the way, just realised you speak portuguese too... funny thing (well, except for the part you had some arguing over there). algumacoisaqq 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit at Illnesses of Ariel Sharon

Hi Redux, was there a reason that you reverted the "International Reaction" section at Illnesses of Ariel Sharon to an older version? The new version was much more extensive and I didn't see a note in the edit summary or on the talk page explaining the change.

Thanks, GabrielF 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - I guess there must have been some kind of edit conflict or something. GabrielF 18:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] respirator vs. ventilator

Hi - thanks for the message! I'll take a look at the Sharon entries every day to check up. I'm following it only tangentially, because when the media gets hysterical over something unimportant or overlooks the real pearl of information in cases like this, I want to throw things at the television. It's always made me crazy - well, at least since I've been an RN - when some announcer says 'respirator' when they should be saying 'ventilator.' The way our instructors explained it to us is that respiration takes place in the cells because of ventilation. With all the recent fuss about 'x percentage of WP articles are incorrect,' this one stuck out like a sore thumb, so I shall 'be bold' and wield the scythe of editing.

I'll post on the appropriate talk page if I find something incorrect; if anyone would like to ask a question as well, I'll try to answer. I've cared for lots of patients who were in the same situation Sharon is in now; even without knowing the specifics, I know he's in trouble. see ya - ddlamb 23:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Brazil

I've just added a lot of info in Diretas Já and Estado Novo (Brazil). Well, I guess is everything ok, but I dont know if it is well expressed. If you have some available time to read it and edit, if needed, I will be very happy.

Btw, Portal:Brazil is a very good, I starded to edit stubs articles to help out with it. Dirke 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it asap. And thanks for the compliment on the Portal :) Redux 11:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfB

In response to your query, there is little you could do on short notice to overcome my hesitation. Since I remain unconvinced more B'crats are necessary, I would only vote support for candidates I know to be of the best judgment: In general, this requires that I have encountered them prior to the vote. Any b'crat candidate I cannot support, I do oppose (without disrespect to the individual), simply because I do not favor the unneeded expansion of the power.

Also, I realize this may be a cultural difference, or just some unfamiliarity with RfA, but you should know that some editors dislike candidates who respond to every neutral or oppose vote. Some view such responses as unbecomingly confrontational. If the oppose voters raise new issues a candidate would like to address, the candidate may always modify his answers to the questions, or respond in the comments section. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Transfer the conversation as you like, and good luck with this, and future nominations and edits. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

At 12-5, I strongly recommend withrawal, before the pile-on comes.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Indeed, it might have be the case, but I'm willing to wait a little longer, since it's still under 48 hours. Thanks for your attention. I'll keep the option at hand. Redux 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I will work on demotion policy in the mean time, but I will need much help on that. Vote on RfA while this goes on, and if it is implimented, RfB again.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have every intention of returning to vote as soon as my RfB closes (whether it runs to completion or not). But as far as re-applying, you are the only one who said that you would change your vote when inactive Bureaucrats get demoted. In general, however, people have opposed out of the understanding that we don't need more Bureaucrats, regardless of all the explaining I have done to the contrary. If even a mathematic demonstration can't convince them now, I don't see how the outcome could be different later. Except for your vote, which I would appreciate. Regards, Redux 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The pile-on has just commenced.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will let it run though. As I see it, a withdrawn Rf.. is not that different from a failed one. I sure want to know what are the reasons why people think I should not be allowed to help out. Redux 10:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional question...

Well, I'm sure you are watching it like a hawk, but I have added a question to your RfB. Please feel free to answer any or all of the parts. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. It didn't really help me make a decision, I just wanted you to be on record if it becomes policy. Whatever may happen, please don't send my a gawdy "Thanks for voting" message. They just clutter up my talk page, and no one needs that. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. Thanks again (here on my talk page). Redux 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean you couldn't just send a little "Thanks" note on my page, I just don't care for the Huge, Box-style, Colored messages that are cold and impersonal. But no problem, it was my pleasure. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result of RfB

Hi Redux,

I hate to be the bearer of ill news, but your RfB didn't make it. You certainly had the necessary verbosity for the position. ;-)

I think with all the broil going on now, voters won't be very amenable to a new bureaucrat until all the recent ones have come up to speed. At least that's how it looks to me. Cheers, Cecropia 05:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I told Quadell earlier, the standard on Bureaucrat has been (by expressed community sentiment) 90% to "no significant opposition." In the more than a year-and-a-half since Angela stopped making almost all the promotions, no-one has been made Bureaucrat with less than 90% support, and only two with more than two opposes. RfA is kind of in a state of flux now, what with (if I read the complaints correctly) an increasing number of "rogue" or just plain incompetent admins and I think the dust needs to settle before people are anxious to make more bureaucrats. See what things are like in a few months. Cheers, Cecropia 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Redux, I read your "however," and with respect, I have been doing this for more than a year and a half and have been in touch with community sentiment, including polling and extensive discussions on the issue, for that entire time, and through well more than 300 decisions on both RfA and RfB. On what basis do you claim that the previous and adhered to standard is simply "historic"? That you were "shooting for 80%" is rather immaterial. Do you understand that you are seeking bureaucrat status but prior to achieving it you are arguing that you have the right to set policy on your own promotion?

We are currently undergoing a mini-crisis of sorts of having admins who many believe ~~should not be admins~~ are misusing their powers and of new bureaucrats making decisions that they were perhaps not quite ready for. And since you are seeking bureaucracy, you should be aware of one important point, the nature of the job is that once a decision is made in good faith and barring impressive new evidence, it will not be changed, especially for bureaucratship. -- Cecropia 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Redux. I just read your latest, for which I thank you. I see you understand that I can't pick and choose who I personally think is suited for bureaucrat or admin. I try not to look too closely at nominations unless and until they fall into that "gray area," unless of course there is an issue of socks, fraud or another severe problems. It hurt for me to remove you and Quadell--I haven't studied either of your qualifications extensively, but my impression is that you each have the necessary temperament for bureaucrats. But if I could pick Bcrats there would be no need for a vote. And I'll give you another dimension: suppose I were to say "damn the torpedos, I think this guy is great so I'll ignore those petty opposes." Then I've just set a new standard (if I'm not already thrown out on my ear) so that a lot of less worthy candidates will also demand promotion at the "new" standard.

I do respect and agree with the community standards that Bcrats have a much lower level of opposition and stronger support than admins. That's why I feel I cannot stretch that 90% minimum without clear community sentiment. If we begin filling Bcrats at 80%, with many people voting on them as carelessly as on admin, we will surely have even more problematic admins made, since bureaucrat abilities are a lowest-common-denominator thing. And right now people are in an uproar about admin abuse. Cordially, Cecropia 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I had asked Cecropia to reconsider based on the fact that an 80% concensus had been achieved. I believe he misunderstood me in my earlier post on his talk page. I was saying quite the contrary. I had claimed that there was no policy stating that a concensus of 90% exists, or a "no substantial opposition" obstacle, for that matter. The people who feel that way are the "regulars" at the RfA, and some of them are exactly those who systematically oppose every candidate for RfB, thereby instating a system where it is next to impossible to fulfil the requirements. The RfA page, on its section on RfB, states that the procedure is the same as that of RfA. Logically, that means that 80% should mandate promotion. That's what's written there, not what I believe should be. Nowhere does the page say anything about a consensus of 90%, and if it's not written anywhere on the project page, it is not policy, it is the "community feeling", which does not become policy until it is properly instated. If I missed something — although I must say, the terms used in the WP:GRFA are vague at best, and no democratic system can function with rules that loose — then I would certainly take back what I said, but I certainly have never tried to set policy by myself. I do, however, insist that actual policy be applied until such a time when it is actually changed. And a statement such as "for a year and half no one has been promoted with a consensus of less than 90%" doesn't establish policy. It informs us of a historic record. Again, nowhere do I see, in a proper project page, spelled out that "consensus for Bureaucratship shall be of at least 90%". Things like that are probably a good part of the reason why RfA is going through a crisis. How could it be any different?
That being said, I can also see where Cecropia is coming from. As he said, he's not the one to simply make a choice. He is bound by a bunch of details, and I completely understand how he could not have made a different decision, which is why I dropped my request for reconsideration, even before I had read his post on my talk page, incidentally. Redux 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can dig back in the RfA talk, you will find the polling that pretty clearly established sentiment on RfBs, and there's been nothing too substantive to alter. IIRC (my memory is pretty good, but not encyclopedic) the RfB at one point did talk about the 90%, but others didn't want the wording, and you know how it can be in "the encylopedia anyone can edit." Wording is watered down or qualified to the point that no one who was not in the original discussion can really understand what it means.

I haven't been active in the current debate on adminship standards, but I think that maybe we need some kind of enfranchisement procedure to determine how can and cannot vote on RfA/RfB. Why? To try to get people to better understand that some voters take the whole thing very seriously, while others just place a vote on a whim, or worse, from negative motives. However, I think any proposal of that type will be shot down as "elitism." I don't really have a well-formed opinion on this, Linuxbeak is trying to get something done, and for now I'm mostly watching. -- Cecropia 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfB 2

Perfectly percolated coffee, Esperanza's own blend.

It's a shame that your RfB didn't pass. Not enough do. You can be sure that I would gladly support you again. And I thank you heartily for the award! --King of All the Franks 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, well I am really sorry to hear that. I think you should have become it because you deserve it. And I think the great number of users who supported you as well is a sign of the confidence we all have in your abilities. You didn't get it not because of flaws, so don't take it too hard on yourself. So heads up! better luck next time... ;-) Gryffindor 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, any time. Happy editing! --King of All the Franks 22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments to me, too. You would be a good Bureaucrat, and hopefully you'll try again sometime. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, you had an RfB? Looks like I missed it! Sorry for not voting, I was a little busy the last little while. --D e ath phoenix 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Shame to see you didnt get it! Strange reasons too; i was especially puzzled at the comment "why is it bad that on crat does 80% of the work?". Ah well. I thought you made a great case for breaking the notion that we've got enough. See ya round! The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 13:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Wow, DP! What a lot of questions for those poor candidates for Adminship! You're really making them work for it! Ever considered a career in the FBI? ;) Redux 02:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... if I told you, I'd have to kill you. Looks like I've started a trend. While I was away, some other folks asked questions too, but I guess they don't work for the FBI ~~like I do~~. --D e ath phoenix 03:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... as one of the folks in on the idea of asking additional questions, I have to say I'm okay with it. It gives us a better idea of how a candidate will behave as an admin. I wouldn't have minded answering these questions. In fact, I probably wanted to answer these questions as a candidate, since they might have helped me get more votes. :-) --D e ath phoenix 03:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with the main page redesign

Hello, as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft I imported the Italian version (it:Pagina_principale) and "translated" it here. My questions are about the footer pictures at the bottom of each box ( and ). Could you perhaps ask a few questions at the Italian project?

Are there others related pics?
Perhaps one relating to other seasons of the year?
What is the source of these ones?

Any information would be appreciated. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You might find this AfD interesting

Hey buddy, I thought you might be interested in this AfD. --D e ath phoenix 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the deletion of your user page is a good way to have you start from scratch. I can try and delete all your contributions from the history databases, if you'd like. --D e ath phoenix 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's one back at you!

For giving a joke as well as you can take it, I hereby award you with the Barnstar of Good Humour. --D e ath phoenix 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think I am accepting this barnstar without giving one back to my compatriot of good humour (not to mention designer of said barnstar), you are sadly mistaken. --D e ath phoenix 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

:-D Redux 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well. :-) --D e ath phoenix 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usuário/utente/colaborador

Não percebi nada do que disseste, Redux. Repara uma coisa: usuário é português do Brasil. Legitimíssimo, é evidente, mas em confronto com o português europeu utente. Colaborador tem a vantagem de ser comum aos dois lados do Atlântico, o que, concordarás, não é uma vantagem de somenos. Agora, não tenho a certeza sobre se o teu revert há-de ser assim tão essencial como critério para eu não o re-reverter. Até admito que sejas um gajo porreiro, e tal, mas as coisas não seriam de discutir? Fiquei um bocado com a ideia de que 'tavas para ali a mandar umas postas de pescada autoritárias com pouca fundamentação. Quanto ao argumento do bife user, é um bom argumento, mas não me parece que tenha nada de decisivo. A ideia de unidade transatlântica não te diz nada? Bom, seja como for, vou ficar à espera de que digas qualquer coisa. Abraços lusos, Velho 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, e é evidente que também se devia fazer a alteração na Wp em português!

Concordarás que é foleiro um gajo começa um comentário com "to begin with". É antipático. Velho 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Meu bom e condescendente amigo, o problema é que a Wp em port. escolheu um termo para as páginas que é estritamente brasileiro. Deve-se alterar, desde logo, aí. Repara que nem sequer há muitas palavras que sejam só PB ou PE: é muito azar ter-se escohlido uma delas logo para um template... Colaborador é comum ao PB e ao PE.
Por outro lado, não há nenhuma razão para os lusófonos que trabalham na Wp em inglês ficarem à espera de alterações na Wp em português, sobretudo quando a mudança na Wp em port. é muito mais profunda e trabalhosa.
Vejo que preferes "critérios objectivos". Mas tão "objectivo" é o critério "fazer o que se faz na Wp.pt" como o critério "usar termos comuns ao PE e ao PB".
Se voltares a mandar-me alguma mensagem, pedia-te que evitasses tiradas auto-referenciais e/ou vazias como "isto que quero provar está muito bem provado".
Um abraço do Velho 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Só mais uma coisa: este problema tem de ser resolvido pelos lusófonos. Estás à vontade para continuar a escrever-me em inglês, mas a coisa soa um nadinha despropositada, para não dizer pretensiosa. Velho 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Template 2

I am a firm believer that transparency is essential on Wikipedia. On the English-language Wikipedia, a key aspect of that is, obviously, that we post in English, so that the contents are available to all who may wish to see. As a necessary consequence, I will not post on any other language on this project. You realize that, if I were to request that a third party joined this discussion, for instance, only my posts would be understandable to almost all the users around here.
On the situation itself, I'm getting the impression that you disagree with the wording of the interface at the pt.wp. That's a problem to be dealt with there however, not here. The fact that the word in question is clearly used in the correspondent syntax form as "user" is indeed a powerful proof that its use, although not universal (obviously), is correct, and using it represents applying an objective criterion to determine the wording for instances such as the Babel template, and an objective criterion is preferable to a subjective one (such as invoking the old "what's right in Portugal and what's right in Brazil" discussion). The syntax used at the pt.wp is held as the standard. If it were to change, then we should change the wording on the template (and any other similar instances).
And incidentally, although your talk page is yours to use as you will, it is bad form to delete comments of others that were made in good faith. It conveys a negative message about the user to do so. I'm sure it's the same over at the pt.wp. Regards, Redux 20:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Desculpa apagar-te da minha talk-page, mas gosto de tê-la limpinha e levezinha. Reproduzi-te aqui, para não achares que é má vontade. Desisto de discutir contigo e aceito desde já a tua boa fé. Não discuto mais porque:

Se ainda estás no ponto de "getting the impression that you disagree with...", quando eu o digo expressamente há três comentários, é porque não posso ter esperança de que percebas o que digo.
Não fazes a menor ideia do que é que "syntax" quer dizer.
Insistindo no que já disse três vezes, "usuário" é um termo absolutissimamente "correcto" e legítimo. Mas, como não é comum aos seis ou sete países lusófonos e há um termo comum perfeitamente utilizável, não há razão para mantê-lo, em vez de substituí-lo pelo termo comum.

Desculpa o tom que uso e não leves a mal. É a bem da expressividade. Palavra de honra que acho que és um colaborador capaz, útil e de boa vontade na Wikipédia. Mas, com franqueza, também te acho pouco dado à necessidade de consensos transatlânticos e pouco preocupado em fazer o esforço necessário a perceber quem fala contigo. E esta segunda parte é má.
Desculpa também escrever-te em português, mas (1) assim é mais rápido e (2) a discussão em causa só é compreensível para quem fale português.
Um abraço do Velho 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Template again

No, apparently it is you who either have not yet understood what I am saying or are ignoring it. Do you understand what "objective criterion" means? perhaps in Portuguese: critério objectivo. We are using the correspondent word for "user" from the Portuguese-language Wikipedia. This is exactly what the other Babel templates do: "usuario", in Spanish, "utilisateur" in French, "utente" in Italian and "Benutzer" in German, to name those referring to the most prominent wikis. You see, that's the pattern of formation of this structure, that is, its syntax. There's no point whatsoever for there to be a controversy around the Portuguese structure when the pt.wp, which is one of the ten largest wikis, sports the word "usuário" prominently. If you don't like it, I'm afraid you'll have to take it up with the community over at the pt.wp. And since you preferred to do so, I shall consider this matter closed. Thanks for your attention. Redux 01:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Eu já estava conformado -- afinal a Wikipédia, mesmo sem querer, acaba por ser uma democracia --, embora agradeça mais uma vez os teus cuidados.
Por outro lado, esta discussão é interessante do ponto de vista da retórica. Repetem-se argumentos e, pelo menos de um dos lados, não se dá a menor atenção aos argumentos da outra parte. Reconhecerás, ainda assim, que eu já tinha dado a minha achega à questão da objectividade do critério.
E eu reconheço que usaste agora um novo argumento. Todas as Wikipédias maiores usam palavras cognatas do verbo "usar" (e suas traduções). Não digo que não seja um argumento válido, pelo menos na aparência, mas não vejo coisa nenhuma entre as finalidades ou os valores da Wikipédia que exija essa constância nas várias línguas.
Apesar de teres dado a coisa por "encerrada", se tivesses tempo para dizer umas palavrinhas sobre a conveniência do uso, no português usado em sítios internacionais, de termos comuns ao PE e ao PB, ficar-te-ia mais uma vez agradecido.
Perdoa-me ainda por louvar o teu esforço meritório para salvar a sintaxe. Mas talvez concedesses que se discutia (e vê que uso o pretérito) apenas uma palavra, não uma estrutura sintáctica. Por mim, concedo que a estrutura está por todo o lado.
Um abraço atlântico e já quase amigo do Velho 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Federer talk

Thanks for all your kind attention on the issues presented in the talk:Roger Federer page. :) It's much appreciated. Noelle De Guzman 05:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)