User talk:Wiki brah/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vandal warnings

[edit] One more

Dear Wb,

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

yours truly, Manik Raina 15:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The others

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. -- Longhair | Talk 06:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Lucky 6.9 06:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

No prob. Thanks for contacting me. Believe me, I'd rather help you than block you. So, here's some reading material: Wikipedia:Manual of style. This is an excellent resource for learning how to contribute here. I'm also as close as my talk page. Sorry to have come off harsh, but you wouldn't believe the sort of really weird edits from people who mean to harm the site instead of help it. I'm extremely pleased to help you if you'd like. - Lucky 6.9 07:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki brah, why did you move a nomination for admin? I'm not objecting, just confused. Also, btw, how did you come across that page - it's not a usual page for new users to come across at first. Thanks in advance for your response. JesseW 19:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ho cakes

Uh, right.  :)

WB, what are you doing...? I said I'd help you but if you do another edit like that last one, it'll be a time out. OK? No more weirdness? Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 01:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, in order to stay, your articles really need to meet a certain level of quality. I'm sure you mean well, but you really need to settle down a tad and get a feel for the site. You can't treat this like a blog page. "Ho cakes?" I admit, it made me laugh, especially the "featured article" header. But...stuff like that really isn't the best use of the site's resources. The nice folks who pay for the servers want the best possible return on their investment. Tell you what: I have to run, but if you have an idea for an article, why not stop by my talk page and let me know what it is? Maybe if I show you how to write a good article, you might understand WIkipedia better. - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's OK. We'll get you up to speed. However, you should decide on a single user name. Right now, you're bouncing between three of them. How 'bout we just stick with this one here? - Lucky 6.9 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Last warning. If you continue to post nonsense, or to disrupt Wikipedia by slapping a delete template on Cindy Sheehan, you WILL be blocked. Zoe 01:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what I was coming here to do. That was uncalled for as was "Monkey spank." Gotta give you a time out for a couple of days for disrupting this site. Nothing personal. However, you can still edit this page if you wish to respond to the block. - Lucky 6.9 01:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Morning

so what are you doing and going on? Why is everyone being mean to me? I am just trying to help. I read some guidelines and articles and don't think she is a notable person just like a stuntwoman on tv for brief fame. I am getting better but still sort of autistic my parents still keep me here. WikiBrohans

No one wants to be mean to you. I had a feeling you were autistic and I'm working with a couple of other autistic users. We welcome you here. But, you need to remember that this isn't a playground and that you simply can't edit the way you have been. I'm giving you one more chance. I'll remove your block, but only if you do the right thing, OK? Let us all help you. - Lucky 6.9 02:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, Brah. I've unblocked you. Now, please be good and edit like I know you can. I have to go, but I'm keeping an eye on you.  :) Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 02:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi, WB. Man, I'm glad it was you and not the vandal I'm dealing with right now who's messing up my page.

If you want, I'll gladly paste that English-speaking template to your user page. As far as making templates is concerned, they're pretty much like making articles, but I think you have to have the green light from other users before you create one. I'll look into that for you. Gotta run after I fix your user page. - Lucky 6.9 20:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look

Think you'll like your user page now.  :)) Later! - Lucky 6.9 20:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah

WB, please do not post articles like that. There isn't a problem with pornography here, but there is a problem with nonsense and near-nonsense. OK? Please? - Lucky 6.9 06:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Digging your user page.  :) What I am referring to is the non-notability of "Sarah." Can't you think of something to write about other than an unverifiable third-rate porn actress starring in a fourth-rate porn movie? I admit, it made me laugh, though. - Lucky 6.9 06:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

Hi, WB. You cannot cut and paste information from other sites. That's a violation of copyright law. Not good. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, not Brazilian Portuguese. My friend, I don't want to send you for another time out, but this kind of editing is disruptive. Let's wipe that thing out and start again, this time with a fresh article...one of your own. - Lucky 6.9 06:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phil collins (south park)

I didn't vandalize your article, I put it up for VFD for the reasons I stated there. And I'm glad that Lucky is working with you, he's a good guy. That doesn't have much to do with your Phil Collins article, however. Soltak 04:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion about you, I don't know you. You shouldn't take my motion to delete your article as any kind of personal attack. As they say, it's nothing personal, it's just business. And, on a different note, please stop plastering {{test}} and related templates on my talk page. Soltak 04:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Wiki brah:

I'm sorry, I'm working on about a dozen other things at the moment that I need to finish. I'd like to be able to help, but I have too many things going on all at once. I really don't know much about porn anyway, I'm a theology professor, and I usually stick to contributing to theology articles or doing admin actions. Perhaps some of the more porn-savvy contributors could be of help? -- Essjay · Talk 05:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns

WB, do you realize that you just asked a Roman Catholic theologian - Essjay - for help with a porn article...? And no, Soltak isn't picking on you. He's trying to help but I think he's running short on patience. I hate to say this, but so am I. You keep on adding the same kinds of edits, you're using sockpuppets in an inappropriate manner (since when are you from Brazil, by the way?), you have yet to respond to a request for comment and now you're attacking other users. I don't think you're being bad on purpose but your behavior's driving us kind of nuts.

I'd like you to do something for me. Stay off Wikipedia this weekend. That's not an order. Instead, do something else. Take a ride. Go on a picnic. Visit the park. Go shopping. Work on your hobbies. Heck, watch some TV. I plan on staying away myself. I plan on spending time with my wife, flying my radio controlled airplanes and, quite possibly, start working on putting my 1965 Ford Mustang back on the street. Poor little car's been sitting in my garage for six years and the weather should be pretty nice. Might even tinker with my old '78 Mercedes-Benz 6.9 (that number sound familiar?). In short, I'm going to do something that doesn't involve sitting by my computer. You should too. - Lucky 6.9 07:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not being mean to you, WB. If you really are originally from Brazil, I'm sorry I doubted you. The "request for comment" means that several other users are worried about the kind of work you're making for others to clean up after you. Soltak told you about it. If you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, you'll see what I mean and you'll have a chance to respond. Did you read my last note all the way through? Did you have a chance to enjoy your weekend away from the computer? I had a rough day myself. Crashed my model airplane after putting time and money into it (my fault) and my car's alternator blew out, leving me stranded. So, sadly, I am back on the computer for the time being. Once again, no one is being mean to you but your edits are causing problems and we all want to help you contribute better. Otherwise, you may be blocked from editing for good. - Lucky 6.9 02:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

My bad. I was thinking of another user who has a request for comment posted. It isn't you and I'm sorry to have concerned you. As far as the new articles are concerned, they are much better in my opinion than the ones you've done. The one on the SNL skit is the best of the bunch. Good job. What I'd suggest on the "South Park" articles would be to add the information to the main article instead of creating articles on them. These are good details about the show, but they might not be terribly useable on their own. In fact, the info would be seen by more people in the main South Park article. Also, thirteen hours straight on the computer isn't the best way to spend a summer Saturday.  :) I've been mostly off today even though my day didn't start out too good. You know what? I still liked it better than sitting in front of the computer. - Lucky 6.9 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at your "Lyle" article now. Your initial entry was excellent and only needed a bit of cleaning up and formatting. That is the kind of quality you should strive for. Don't worry about formatting, spelling and things like that. If what you write is that good out of the box, it's more likely to get cleaned up. Very, very good job!! - Lucky 6.9 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Babel

May I ask why you have so many separate babel templates? I think it is an interesting choice, and was wondering if you were aware of how the babel system works. I recommend you check out Wikipedia:Babel for more familiarization. If not, more power to ya. Happy editing. -Sunglasses at night 07:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Request for comment" comment

I happened to drop by and I noticed the comment you left on ViteroHoratio's talk page. Soltak is absolutely justified in trying to point out that this other user is trying to leave phony articles on this site. Soltak has also been very nice, patient and helpful to you and for you to offer to support a request for comment against him is, I'm afraid to say, the single most horrid thing I've ever seen a registered user like yourself do to another registered user. Just my two cents. Suggestion: Withdraw your offer. Please. - Lucky 6.9 14:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I also happened to see that comment you left on an anonymous vandal's talk page. I have been as nice and as patient with you as I know how to be but you have gone too far. What you did was wrong and might very well get you kicked off of this site, especially in light of your edit history. I tried. I really did. - Lucky 6.9 14:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kushell, RfC, and a few other things

I might not be as cheery and welcoming as some of the editors/admins on Wikipedia, but I certainly don't think I've ever been "mean" to anyone here. I've been quite polite in our discussions, really. The reasons behind my earlier taggings of two of your articles can be found at the VFD discussion page. My reasons for tagging the Kushell article with {{totallydisputed}} can be found on that article's talk page; I would also suggest that you read WP:V and WP:NPOV. After you review those two guidelines, I would be more than happy to work with you on improving the Lisa Kushell article.

Regarding the RfC against me that you appear to be trying to drum up support for, I'd have to recommend against your taking the action any further. I want to be very clear that I'm neither making threats nor demonstrating any sort of inflated image of myself: Even if you somehow managed to find two people to certify the charges, it would fail miserably. Also, I would be forced to raise an RfC against you for your behavior here.

I have tried to be as nice as possible and I know other users have gone out of their way to help you, Lucky 6.9, for example. I very much hope that you will reconsider filing an RfC and that you focus more on making thoughtful, relevant contributions to Wikipedia. Soltak 18:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Thank you very much for your apology. I can certainly understand your curiosity with respect to a lot of Wikipedia proceedure and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them. Now that we've gotten all of that nonsense behind us, I hope we can work together on making Wikipedia that much better :-) Soltak | Talk 19:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your promise

OK, I hope that you won't do something like that again. This site should be a fun experience for everyone. Attacking someone who's tried to help you is wrong.

I'm going to try and help you once more. There's a user named User:Maoririder who has admitted to being autistic. That isn't a problem. In fact, we have a user named User:SuperDude115 who edited much the same as you do and he drove us nuts before he admitted to being autistic. Took him a while, but he has settled down and has become a good contributor. As for Maoririder, he's been wreaking havoc. He probably doesn't mean to, but he's causing a lot of work for a lot of people, myself included. It's gotten to the point where we've brought forth a request for arbitration. That's kind of like "wiki-court." You can see the request for arbitration here. Let me stress: This is not being mean. This is a way of dealing with bad behavior so that it doesn't happen again. I didn't want this to happen to Maoririder and I don't want it to happen to you. Please don't give someone here a reason to file a request against you, too. - Lucky 6.9 14:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

Look, please find something...anything...to write about beyond half-baked references to South Park episodes! I have deleted the "fetish" nonsense and redirected the "Lianne Cartman" entry. I have run out of patience. You want to expand something? Let's expand that Lisa what's-her-name article beyond slapping expansion notices on it. One more bizarre edit like these last ones and it's vacation time. Please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 01:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Please take a look at Lisa Kushell now. This only took me ten minutes to add some info gathered online and to format it to standards. - Lucky 6.9 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Normally, some of the lists like the ones you've been making would wind up on the deletion page, but you're making so many of them that you're clogging up the deletion process. So, it was "go, go, Gadget admin privileges" and a quick hit of the history eraser button.  :) As for the Kushell article, that's the kind of formatting all the articles on this site require. Real dry and basic. You can't write articles like fan mail. See, part of my real job is writing advertising copy. I found out that the kinds of words and phrases that make an ad jump out at you simply aren't allowed here. I did the same thing, adding lots of imagery. Nope. Doesn't work here. Some got reverted. As for the facts, check them against the IMDb link. That's where I got the info. If you're certain something's wrong, feel free to set it right. - Lucky 6.9 05:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Hot damn, I do believe you're getting the idea!! Those are precisely the kinds of edits that article needed! That's nearly perfect work. The closing sentence needs a minor tweak. Simple stuff. I'm not sure if the photos can be used since there may be copyright issues, but I'm not complaining. Good man!! - Lucky 6.9 05:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The photos are copyrighted. Don't worry about it; I've taken care of them. And, I've fixed the formatting of the text. - Lucky 6.9 06:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I had a hunch you downloaded them from the official website and then uploaded them here. There may be some photos on the Wikimedia Commons that you can use. Most celeb photos like that are copyrighted if they're on websites like that. The bottom of the page they're on almost always claim copyright or "all rights reserved." To this day, I'm leery of uploading pictures because of all the copyright mess, unless they're my own, of course. Some of the help pages can probably answer a lot of questions regarding what's called "fair use" of copyrighted materials. Off to bed...good night and good job. - Lucky 6.9 06:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hot Jewish Actress

It's not encyclopedic style; it's POV, first of all. I don't think we're categorizing actors by religion. -- Curps 07:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The intial version you created [1] was not encyclopedic style at all ("is very hot", "she is very, very beautiful"). See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The edits other users made were improvements, to give the article an encyclopedic style.

Please be aware of the three-revert rule before you change it back. -- Curps 07:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


You reverted it a fourth time while I was editing your talk page. In the future, however, you should be aware of the three-revert rule.

An encyclopedia is not a blog or a fan page, and articles in it are written in a certain style. Once again, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, or see how other pages are written. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Comments like "She is very, very beautiful" will almost always be edited out. -- Curps 07:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


I didn't "snap" at you at all, I'm replying to your posts on my talk page and I think we're having a civil conversation.

Could you please refrain from adding Template:Hot Jewish Actress to any other pages until you get feedback from other users? Please note that someone has already nominated this template for deletion. -- Curps 07:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Some admins might count your first edit as the first "revert". A more neutral title might be just "Jewish actresses", but it will be up to community consensus to decide if we want to subcategorize actors and actresses by ethnicity or religion. -- Curps 08:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your template

Hi Wiki brah,

I took your template off the Taylor Rain article. It wasn't appropriate; indeed, I don't think it would be appropriate for any article. I do realise that Rain is a pornographic model, and it may be appropriate for the article on her to mention such special skills she has, but it shouldn't be the first thing that you notice when you load the page. This is an encyclopedia, and that page is an encylopedia article, not the cover of a magazine competing for shelf space in the restricted section of a magazine rack. We want our articles to look good, but we don't want them to look flashy, and above all else, we want them to be balanced. The first paragraph of any article should sum up the subject concisely. The first sentence of Taylor Rain already does that well: it gives you her date of birth (and therefore age), her gender (implicitly), her place of birth (and implicitly her nationality), and the reason why she's worthy of an article on Wikipedia: she's a porn star. The rest of the paragraph goes on to give a bit more detail on her, and the rest of the article gives still more information. No need for your template at all.-gadfium 09:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latin?

Hello! I saw you listed as one of our rare users who are good at Latin. Would you be willing to help translating a bit of text from English into Latin? Let me know please. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia has a number of WikiPrayers. I've translated a couple, but my Latin is a bit rusty. Radiant_>|< 09:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to archive talk pages

Your talk page isn't overly long, so you don't really need to archive it yet if you don't want to. If you still want to archive it, here is the easiest way:

  1. Move your talk page to User talk:Wiki brah/Archive 1 (or a similar name of your choosing).
  2. Go to User talk:Wiki brah and create a new page containing a link to User talk:Wiki brah/Archive 1 . You can view the source of my talk page for a good syntax if you want. It is important that you don't forget this step, since someone might accuse you of hiding things that people said to you.
  3. With a relatively short page length like yours, you should probably leave a comment on your new talk page explaining why you archived such a small talk page.
  4. Add User talk:Wiki brah/Archive 1 to your watchlist so you can reply to newbies who post there by mistake.

⇝Casito⇝Talk 20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)(Also posted to User talk:Casito)

[edit] Lisa Kushell & Templates

I guess I don't really need to help much with the Kushell article now that Lucky 6.9 cleaned it up quite a bit. About adding a picture I think that's a great idea. You have to find a photo that's either in the public domain or is acceptable under Wikipedia:Fair use. Doing a quick google image search yields several results [2]. I'll let you take a look through them and pick out the best one that's acceptable and discussed above. When you want to add the picture, type this at the very top of the article [[Image:"image name.jpg"|right]].

About templates, there are a number of criteria a template has to meet before it's accepted. Before creating a stub template, you should purpose it at WP:WSS/P. Soltak | Talk 00:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

Good timing. I just checked in. Hang on a moment and I'll answer your questions. - Lucky 6.9 04:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting user page, to say the least. :) I must say, I'm flattered you consider me a friend! I've certainly tried to help you as one.

Let's answer your questions one at a time:

  • What is an administrator, editor, bureaucrat, arbitrator and is their like a chain of command here or something?

In a way, yes. It's an all-volunteer system. An editor is someone like you with basic editing privileges. An administrator is kind of the "face" of Wikipedia. We've been around awhile and, if nominated, can earn the position if enough users vote to support. A bureaucrat is a higher level that can actually do the promoting to administrator and an arbitor steps in to try and solve problems between users.

  • Also I see some articles and stubs get elected for deletions. Can I vote and what other stuff is going under elections?

As a registered user, you are not only able to vote on the "votes for deletion" page, I encourage you to do so. Random-character nonsense stubs that look sort of like "zxcvxcv" are speedy deletion candidates. So are "vanity" articles about real people who, frankly, aren't notable. These can be tagged with {{del}}. Band articles or potential hoaxes can be tagged with {{subst:vfd}} and added to the most recent "votes for deletion" or "VfD" page.

  • Also when I put my articles on the "expand" list nobody ever does anything why is that?

Good question. Some folks who patrol the expansion pages pick and choose from among the choices. Articles which are way too short and might require more work than another user is willing to put into it is another reason.

  • How many users are on Wikipedia? How many use their accounts every day like us?

Another good question but I don't have the answers, although I'm certain we can find out.

  • I looked at Maori riders Request for Arbiration and Comment. Can you please explain more about these procedures to me?

Of course. A request for comment can be filed if two or more users try to solve a problem with another user and the problem can't be solved. That's when the arbitors first step in. If the problem continues, the next step is a request for arbitration. This is more serious and if the arbitors agree to hear the case and agree on its outcome, a user can be banned, perhaps for good.

  • Can you explain "fair use" to me?

"Fair use" is part of the US copyright law that states that a copyrighted work can be used without permission for certain things. A corporate logo is fair use. So is a screenshot from a video. Anything considered to be in the public domain is fair use as well. That's something that was once copyrighted but isn't anymore.

  • Do users work together secretly to gang up on people? Like I see those two guys last night were giving me problems at the same time pretty much.

Yeah, it seems that way, doesn't it? One thing I've learned here is while there may be a grumpy user or two, most of the people who edit here are working toward a common goal and try and work together. If a user is causing trouble, it's likely that other users will gang up on him/her, not to be mean but to keep the site working properly and to make sure that everyone here has a great experience. Trolls happen on the Internet. Fact of life.  :)

  • What is a sockpuppet? What is a meatpuppet?

Both mean the same thing. It's when a person tries editing under several different names to try and come off as several different people. Happens a lot on the "votes for deletion" page. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppets to learn more.

  • How is a block different from a ban?

A block is only for a short period of time. A ban is bye-bye for good.

Hope this helps! - Lucky 6.9 04:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you might be getting better as well. You've been around for a couple of weeks or so, plenty of time to start to learn the feel of the place. Two things to keep in mind: First, keep the end user in mind. Those are the thousands of people who log on here every day to learn something. Second, as an editor, have fun. Just stay within the rules and you'll be fine. Think of this as more of someone's living room rather than a playground.  :) - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter article

Hi! Nice bit of work...but please do not create your own categories. Otherwise, good job! - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the 'copter article and I see you've started the cocaine article. More terrific work. That last one, I'm not so sure. What does anal sex in Brasil have to do with anything...? Just wondering. - Lucky 6.9 02:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I see. One suggestion: Can you add some sources? GOOD work, but it might come off as personal opinion. - Lucky 6.9 02:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion someone else brought up: I know you spell it as "Brasil" down there, but in English, it's spelled "Brazil." - Lucky 6.9 02:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, both should have some external references, but since you actually live there and see these things for yourself, I don't think you'll get called out for not citing sources. Don't worry about it. EXCELLENT work. - Lucky 6.9 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Stalking

Now it obvious that you are stalking me... Grow up. I'm stalking the Recent Changes page, and your subliterate and uninformative additions caught my eye. "Of course everyone in South America knows about him falling into an open sewer as a child"? Buh? What actual information is in this sentence? How does it aid the understanding of anyone, say, NOT in South America?

Since, I may note, someone else has reverted those edits, perhaps you should run off to their Talk page and exercise your paranoia on them. --Calton | Talk 04:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

...should I remind you that there are more Japanese people in South America than in Japan? There are over 130 million Japanese people in South America? Over a third of the population of South America is Japanese? Now who doesn't know what he's talking about?

Since you're clearly having a great deal of trouble understanding what ought to be a simple point (choosing to view it through some ethnic bias prism), let's go over the second version of your sentence, Of course everyone in South America knows about him falling into an open sewer as a child, minor points first:

  • Of course.... At the beginning of a sentence, this is a transitional clause, used to relate an idea in a previous sentence (A) to the new one (B); here, it would be saying that B is a natural and obvious consequence of A that must be dealt with.
We finished writing the code. Of course, we must still beta-test it.
As a clause, it must also have a comma (,) between it an the main part of the sentence.
  • Changing the sentence by inserting the "of course" into the middle probably comes closer to what you meant (if my reading of the difference between it and the first version, A funny story is told about Maradona is that he fell into an open sewer as a young boy in Argentina, is correct). New version:
Everyone in South America, of course, knows about him falling into an open sewer as a child.
There are two big problems with this, still:
1) It's implicitly an answer to a question not asked anywhere on the page, a reply to my deleting the first version. Anyone encountering it will have no knowledge of what objection you're answering.
2) The sentence contains NO information. This is an encyclopedia, not a DIY infosource, so it is the job of an article to actually give people the information instead of just hinting at it, regardless of your (clearly flawed) assumptions of prior knowledge of the reader; it's immaterial whether "everyone in South America" knows". Also, since this is the English-language Wikipedia, almost all the readers are NOT South American, so unless you're suggesting that all English Wikipedia readers must have a South American at their elbow ready to fill in the knowledge gaps, your sentence is not acceptable.
It would be as if the Politics of Brazil article had a sentence reading Everyone in South America, of course, knows the tragic story of the Brazilian president, and left it at that. Or the Brazilian Wikipedia having a sentence in its American history article simply reading Cada americano sabe a história de George Washington e a árvore de cereja, and nothing else.
If you don't like having your work edited, altered, or deleted, take greater care before hitting the "Save page" button. --Calton | Talk 05:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Naturally, I used Babelfish -- it was supposed to be an obviously subliterate sentence, and that was the easiest way to produce it. It's intended as a direct analogy to your sentence. --Calton | Talk 06:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
...such a subtle change... The "subtle change" was changing "everybody" to "Americans" in the Bablefish translation entry, to more closely match the structure of your sentence. Of course, this implies that you find the programmers at Babelfish are a lot more subtle than I would normally give them credit for. --Calton | Talk 06:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maradona etc

You should fine-tune the article a bit, then, to reflect the new information. Use this as a source, and merge it into the previous sentence about the illegitimacy of the goal, so it flows well. And don't worry about Calton. he's not "stalking" you; your edits have been quite noticable, a lot of them real good, but some just weird, and (like me!) he's been keeping an eye on you to help you help us make a great wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More about "stalking"

Don't worry about Calton. He's good people. One of the best users on this site, in my opinion. I think he might be a bit concerned with some of your edits like Jpgordon said. You're getting better, but some of your edits are still a bit, well, unique. - Lucky 6.9 05:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

sorry can't help I'm staying away from Paul and anything having to do with him, you have a problem with a user take it up on WP:AN and an admin will help you. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 08:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd'd articles

My advice to you is to wait and see how the Vfd's go on your articles. Some of the subjects you pick to write articles on are rather marginal for an encylopedia, so let the community decide on whether they should be kept or not. Don't take it personally. It's standard practice when an editor finds an article that they don't think is suitable to also examine other articles created by the same editor. This is the opinion of the nominator, and doesn't reflect everyone else's opinion of your work.

As you can see from my vote, I liked the article on helicopter use in Sao Paulo, although I think it should be renamed. The article on anal sex in Brazil might be better merged into a section on cultural attitudes to anal sex, but I don't plan to vote on the article. The anal-3 template probably should be deleted (in my opinion).

I've visited Rio de Janeiro and liked it, but I've only been to the airport in Sao Paulo. I'd like to see more of Brazil sometime.-gadfium 08:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Country name

Just so you know, the English name of the country is Brazil, not Brasil. 12:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa in Brazil...?

LOL! Cute, Brah. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if you did write an article under that title, but it's probably best you didn't. Gadfium summed it up best as to why. - Lucky 6.9 14:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexuality in Brazil

Not a bad start, but still needs some work, IMO. Please see my comments at [[Talk:Bisexuality in Brazil}}. DES (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub templates

Please read the guidelines for stub templates, at WP:SFD, WP:WSS/P and WP:WSS/NG (which you might not have noticed before -- the other two you've posted on) before proposing templates. Then only propose serious templates that have a fair chance of being created, and not with posts bordering on vandalism. --Mairi 06:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Those acronyms expand to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines. I was just using the abbreviations to keep the comment short/clear, since I was listing several of them. The acronyms are just convenient redirects for people who use the pages frequently. --Mairi 21:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your articles

Should I salute your ingenuity in wasting the resources of wikipedia and wikipedians or simply … ah shoot you? Choice is yours. --Bhadani 15:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not waste time, do something nice. --Bhadani 15:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Really. You've got lots of potential as an excellent Wiki contributor; get serious and you'll be quite welcome; continue with what you've been doing and you'll be persona non grata real quick. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the compliment but what do you mean doing what i've been doing? I'm getting a lot better I thinkWiki brah 18:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Wiki brah, I'll bet you're getting awfully tired of having your articles VfD'd as soon as they come out the gate. Why don't you start running article ideas past another editor before diving into writing them? I'd be more than happy to help you out, and I'm sure that plenty of other editors would, too. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

WB, that "cocaine use" thing is a total waste of time and resources. You're taking a 48-hour time out for disruption of the site. I like you, I want to help you, but you are taking up entirely too much time of other editors. - Lucky 6.9 22:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Articles

Pardon me my friend but I had to VFD a few of your articles. Could you please stop posting such nonsense on here? Thanks. Hit me up if you have any issues take care.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

[edit] My dear

My dear Wiki brah, I am sorry, really sorry - please donot take the word ‘shoot’ as a death threat, I said that jokingly and I never meant that for you...I never intended that ... let us be friends and we all are here to do something constructive. In any case, I was talking about the articles and not about your "person”. In case, I have hurt your feelings, I really apologize. I am sure that you understand, please do not mistake me. Friendly yours. --Bhadani 13:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • My dear Wiki brah, I will wait for your reply, and please always give me support. In case, you want to write on some topic, please let me know, we will do that together. Ok, promise. Now cheers! --Bhadani 16:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible RfC

Hi, WB. I hope that you took the time to think about how you can contribute in better ways. Another user just contacted me and he's very concerned regarding your edits. It may result in a request for comment. That's when the arbitrators are asked to decide a course of action. Please, please, please think of something to contribute that would be of use in an encyclopedia. Please? - Lucky 6.9 04:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "hot Jewish women." Hey, if Natalie Portman is on the list, count me in.  :) Seriously, there's a couple of rules around here that would prevent a list like that, the most important one being Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You've probably seen the abbreviation, "NPOV." Same thing. A list like "Hot Jewish Women" simply isn't neutral. It's more like conjecture. Who you think is hot, who I think is hot and who another user thinks is hot is up to each user. Instead, since articles on Brazil seem to be favorites of yours, why not think of something related to Brazil? Not a list like the cocaine thing, but an article about something important in Brazil that either doesn't have an article or has a really poor article that need expanding. Why not take a look in the search window and find something? - Lucky 6.9 04:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is getting really bad. You went and did exactly what I asked you not to do. No one, and I mean no one is going to come to this site looking for "fetishes in Brazil," plain and simple. Let's get your mind out of the gutter for just a moment, OK? No more articles pulled from the top of your head. No more articles about sex, debauchery and drug use in Brazil. Is there a place you'd like to write about? How about a major corporation based in Brazil? Heck, I'd settle for an article on a local street corner delicacy at this rate. Let's take this from the top and try and think about what I've asked you to. - Lucky 6.9 05:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: All but three of your articles are currently being voted for deletion. I helped clean up two of those. Please, I am begging you: Stop wasting your time and ours with these weird edits. PLEASE. - Lucky 6.9 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Sorry to have to do this to you, but that last rant put me over the top as did that really weird rant on your user page, even after a 48-hour block and even after I begged you to stop and consider your edits. I can't do this alone anymore. A request for comment has been filed in an effort to help you create better articles and to show you what you've been doing wrong. You can respond here. - Lucky 6.9 05:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your nonsense

Wiki, I am writing this at the request of others. I'm not going to spend a lot of time going into detail here about your work, or documenting your comments about me on other people's talk pages or my specific problems with your work. Your work and your behavior speak for themselves. There's little to say that others haven't. But what I will say is this:

1. Cut out the nonsense immediately and get off this drug-porno thing. If you want to start a Wikidrug or Pornopedia site, go do so on your own dime, but don't do it here.

2. Stop whining to everyone. Every time you do this, you are making things worse for yourself, and baiting some gullible soul into flushing their own credibility down the toilet.

3. Start doing exactly what other people are telling you to do.

4. You have a serious problem, and if, as you have stated, you are slightly autistic, I suggest you find a new, more frivolous Internet plaything that you can disrupt without gumming up this valuable resource and wasting others' valuable time. People are trying to do serious work here. If you are lying about your autism, you'd better hope I don't find out. In either case, get some help.

5. Go apologize to everyone you're hurt, fix everything you've broken, delete all of your nonsense, mop up your messes and then take a long break.

I do not for a minute take you seriously, and in my opinion you are a hoaxer. A lot of people around here are so hypertimid, or politically correct, or desperate for peer approval that they are stepping gingerly around you so they won't risk having other people not liking them. Sometimes this affects their ability to recognize certain contributions as out and out crap, and certain people as outright crackpots. I am not so gullible, so timid, or so desperate to be liked.

I am going to watch you, I am going to monitor your work and your interaction with others, and I am going to fight back hard everytime you come after me. I am also going to support everyone's attempt to get you banned from this site. This is what is known as being a hard-ass.

I can't believe I've just wasted twenty minutes typing this, or that you've made it necessary for others to stop their writing and editing in order to babysit you. But you've made it necessary and I care about this place.

There are many more things I would like to say, but I am holding my tongue. I hope this note helps you understand me a bit better. If you want to know anything else about me, go to a zoo, and go look at a tiger -- and look hard.

NOTE TO OTHERS: If you think I'm being harsh, I respect your right to your opinion and POV, but it is just that -- your opinion and POV. I have thought this through carefully and am not likely to change my mind. Also, if you have seen Wiki brah's "contributions" and are still not sure whether he is a problem, then you yourself might be contributing to the free-for-all atmosphere and low threshhold for new contributions around here, by being gullible and by practicing the politically correct timidity I've described above. Please think about that. Watch this user, and put him on a short leash. Do not tolerate his nonsense. Think about all the valuable time that has been wasted because no one has banned this person.

(For anyone wondering, the above is what is known as reading someone the Riot Act. I had to wikify something.)

-- Paul Klenk 06:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfC

First off, I have never made fun of you. I have only tried to help you and you just keep doing the wrong thing. Paul Klenk is just plain tired of cleaning up, so I'm not surprised at his note. Also, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that I'm somehow interfering with your love life? I'm in California, remember...? We've never met face-to-face as far as I know. I have a friend up here who was born and raised in Rio de Janeiro; you aren't her. If you want to respond to the request and defend yourself, I encourage you to do so. Go here and good luck. - Lucky 6.9 01:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Fish on Cars in the U.S.A.

Please stop creating nonsense like Jesus Fish on Cars in the U.S.A.. android79 02:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFC response

A quick clarification about your RFC response:

dont you think its my business how I live my li[f]e

Absolutely. However, the RFC has nothing to do with your personal life. It has to do with your content creation.

I donnt understand what you are yellng at me about I mean tlook at tmy usser page

Actually, the correct answer is to look at this talk page. Users have explained this to you time and again (particularly Lucky) and frankly, "I don't get it" isn't going to be accepted as a justification by anybody.

You've had a few articles that have been good starts. Learn from those, what WP is interested in as content, and find where that overlaps with your personal knowledge. Once you're in a position of writing about acceptable things you know about, you'll be fine. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:17:13, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

I left this off the RFC page because I didn't find it germane to the discussion there. As I understand it, that's not the place for dissecting your comments. Even if I'm wrong and it is, I feel that giving you the (relatively) private option to revise those comments is preferable to posting a critique at the RFC.
Finally, please don't attempt to insert personal attacks into my comments. I have called you neither irrational nor crazy. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:12:48, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please see WP:NPOV. Friday (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about Dinner and A Movie. This TV show can certainly have an article about it, but the current content there has serious problems. Besides the typos, you've violated the neutral point of view policy. Friday (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You should also be aware of the no personal attacks policy. Friday (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Friday is right. You continue to violate policy, you continue to leave a mess for others to clean up after you and then you wonder why people are "picking on you." So, you revert to personal attacks. I don't know what else I can do. I've asked you nicely and still you persist. I've treated you like a friend and you have let me down. I've asked you to take a look at what others including myself have written and you haven't applied any of the necessary style to your work. Paul Klenk about crawled down your throat for the idiosyncratic edits you do...and now we have Dinner and a Movie. Fairly notable subject; near useless article. I am simply too swamped at work today to even begin to clean this article up, nor am I particularly interested in doing so. Therefore, you are asked to bring that article to standards. Use your "Bus 174" article as an example. That's the single best thing you've written. If you don't, I'm thinking very strongly of making an exception to policy and deleting it myself later on since there is nothing particularly useful in the article at present that can be applied to a new one. Your call, Brah. I've used up far too much time as it is. - Lucky 6.9 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read the comment again. "Bus 174" is excellent. For me to delete that article would be a gross misuse of my administrative powers. I'm talking about "Dinner and a Movie." - Lucky 6.9 19:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bus 174

A quick note: as Lucky has said, it's great. However, removing the documentary stub because you don't like the template picture is inappropriate. Take that up at the template talk page. Personally, I think you've even got a valid point -- a large number of people in the US (read: many conservatives) don't think F9/11 is a true documentary, so perhaps another illustration is appropriate. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:35:06, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

No, I am not taking a harsh tone with you. Believe me, you'd know it if I was. I am not a harsh person, but I do have my limits and you have exceeded them. I am, however, extremely annoyed at having to keep on saying the same thing day after day. In fact, I'm not sure what you're talking about in that last message. Also, if you don't think I've never taken a harsh tone with Maoririder, believe me, I have. To his credit, he's settling down somewhat in the article space and making better edits. - Lucky 6.9 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woo.

Sorry, WB...but this charade ends right here, right now. I have wasted an irretrievable chunk of my lifetime defending an obvious Internet troll. I saw your comment on the RfC and I have freaking had it. I have motioned to have your account terminated immediately. The only reason I haven't blocked this account permanently is because of the open RfC. My chain has been yanked long enough. I tried to reach out to a fellow human being and had my face rubbed in the mud. No more. I will not have you insult my intelligence even one moment longer. Enjoy your "hookers" and your "blow." - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If you think that I have been the one doing mean things, you have another think coming. I happen to enjoy editing on this site. I have racked up over 13,000 edits and helped create six featured articles; three of which were originals. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a trusting soul; sometimes too trusting, which may someday be my downfall. I tried to help you and all I've gotten for the effort of the last two weeks is a headache. I thought you were an enthusiastic individual ready to learn about a larger world. It was my pleasure to usher you into it. I refuse to participate in this charade any further. I post on other sites and have a lot of fun doing it. This kind of confrontation tries my patience to the hilt. Like I said: No more. - Lucky 6.9 02:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My lack of adminship

Brah, if you had read here, you would know that I am not an admin. Had I been nominated by a respectable person (not you), I would have stood a much better chance. Thanks for informing me of your true intentions in doing so. Just to set the record straight, I would have never come to the aid of a troll such as you, admin or otherwise. Please do not bother me again. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)