User talk:Cybershore

'''"There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response." Julian Assange'''

Italian Campaign (World War II)
Hi. Please see the discussion on the Gothic Line and Spring 1945 offensive I have started at Talk:Italian Campaign (World War II). Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution to Pelé
Hi, Cybershore. Your contribution to the Pelé page is appreciated. I've only made some language corrections in your edits, whilst trying to keep the information you brought to the article unchanged. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WW II war becomes global
Dear Cybershore, To my opinion, mentioning the Rio conference is redundant for two reasons: Therefore, I don't think that a non-decisive meeting of not-very-important countries deserves a separate mentioning. This sentence just distracts a reader's opinion from really important events. Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This conference just "recommended that those Latin American countries that had not already done so sever diplomatic and commercial relations with Germany, Italy, and Japan". No major country declared a war on the Axis in Rio.
 * 2) Both significance and military contribution of Latin America was negligible during WWII.

Brazil
Since you have been insisting on adding unnecessary information into the text no matter how many editors revert your edits, I've requested an administrator to deal with the matter. You should learn that in Wikipedia you should try to talk first, and discuss later if you notice that other editors are opposing your actions. --Lecen (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cybershore. I'm here regarding the recent dispute in Brazil. It appears that one other editor has agreed with Lecen per the discussion and another user reverted a similar edit that you have made. As it seems for now, consensus is against you. At this point, reverting is not the best option even if you have stated something in the talk page. For now, I would advise to stop reverting and discuss further in the talk page. Editing against consensus is considered disruptive and may be considered edit warring. Editors who persistently edit against consensus may be blocked to prevent disruption. If there is an agreement to keep the text, then it may be added without problems. But, for right now, it's best to just discuss. Elockid  ( Talk ) 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Elockid,
 * The editor (Dr.K.) who you mentioned in the quoted reversal wrote there that was due to the spelling mistakes and lack of references (so not related to content, I presume, because) since I fixed it, the same person later, not only kept my edit, but also contributed in an cooperative and consensual way to it, as you can check here---> Thank you for contact Cybershore (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Brazil; Early Republic
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring against consensus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text

Change to but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Bwilkins, I wouldn't edit so many times right at the "Save Page" if the "Show Preview" for "unquest block" here provide a decent Preview. This should be improved by Wikipedia as well it's Tutorials, that are really confuse to anyone who have not strong bureaucratic feelings. Relation to Consensus, if even the Wikipedia philosophy about this matter warn that:

"There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version. Do not accept 'Policy', 'consensus', or 'procedure' as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately" ; will not be me, who will dispute.


 * Regarding your statement, seeing the Discussion Page there are two editors who seems agree with me: Dr.K. (as I mentioned in this talk page above) and MBelgrano, this is not entirely true. MBelgrano said he/she would like the information on the article BUT in the different place, more specifically History of Brazil. Exact quote: May I suggest adding that information to History of Brazil instead of here. From what I can see all three editors have disagreement on having that information put on the main article. Dr.K hasn't participated in the discussion so you can't say that he agrees with you. Another editor improving an edit does not mean they agree with your edit. Keeping the edit does not mean they agree with you as well. So really, the only person in your party is yourself.


 * Secondly, when there is a dispute, we try an obtain consensus around here. This means that when multiple editors are objecting to your edit or version, you don't keep reverting especially when you're the only one disagreeing. Instead you work with the other party or parties in the meantime. We don't keep doing, I explained my edit and reverted despite nobody else agreeing with me. This is not helpful. I implore you to follow the advice of Bwilkins. Further edit warring will lead to escalating blocks. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk ) 14:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Elockid,
 * I recognize that instead of having wrote "there are 2 editors who SEEMS agree with me", I should had wrote "there are 2 editors (now 3, see Kintetsubuffalo |here ) who PARTLY agree with me"...
 * Simply because they reverted an obvious act of vandalism into the last version of the article which was the one you edited does not mean that they agree with you. I have no idea how could you imagine that that was somekind of support. --Lecen (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in complete agreement with Lecen about Kintetsubuffalo. No one that I know both here and in real life would agree that that edit Kintetsubuffalo made meant that he/she agreed with your edits. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask any other administrator or long-time editor. You still have not showed any definitive proof that other editors agree with you. Again, I do not know any other experienced editor who would agree with what your saying that there are people agreeing with you. Please show me exactly, what I mean by exactly is where and when a person wrote (copy the quote and give the diff), were they said in any form or way that they want to keep that information in the article Brazil and nowhere else. Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Elockid,
 * Sorry, but I must disagree with you in some points:
 * If someone simply revert to another person's version, 1st this can not be, in a arbitrary way, classified as simple 'vandalism', this is vandalim; an clear act of vandalism perpetrated by an 'anonymous' person, and 'Anonymous' between quotation marks 'cause we know that there is no such thing as anonymity in World Wide Web;
 * 2nd Thus, when someone revert specifically to another person's Non vandalic version, if it is not a passive agreement, I don't know what else could be...
 * Anyway, talking about specific requests of the disputed line (nor a section, neither the article, but part of one line...) I'll be very glad if the people obsessed with this brief passage lesser than 1 line (with reference that link to the specific article that contain infos about the 1910's years of Brazilian XX century's history), come with objective arguments, not with subjective moans. For example, in the Discussion Page, Lecen after of some days trying unsuccessfull revert without discussion, always in a agressive way expressed in his 'justifications', when we went to discussion page and he questioned the need for the sentence in dispute;
 * I replied giving my reasons: "The discussed edit refers to the history of Brazil and not (just) the World War I. In this context it should be taken into account, furthermore the main link there is related to the events of the 1910's and not only to the Brazilian involvement in World War I. One more time, although the Brazilian poor military involvement in that conflict along 1918 (not just 2 months) had been negligible to the war outcome, the point is - it had implications related to the Brazilian history of that period, inseparable from the many reasons that avoided Brazil has becoming embroiled in that war, as you can see going to the related article. For all those familiar with Brazilian history ok. But my aim is to all those unfamiliar with this history, and who occasionally having access the page "Brazil", can find short links for the wider articles of that period"
 * Later, without argue against the arguments that I show above, questioned (as are in Yr talk page) "What events? What happened?"
 * I replied: "What events? Well, my friend I mention, for example, the Revolt of the Whip (1910), the Contestado War (1912-16) and the Big General Strike of 1917, apart the political turmoil and street clashes along 1917-18 between groups disagreeing about the appropriateness of Brazil to get involved in the world war I beyond the anti-submarine Warfare. Like it or not, these events marked the Brazil in that decade, are part of Brazilian history and summarized in less than one line, with links to its subsections, do not hurt this page. Related to the gaps in the historic narratives of some articles of this FREE encyclopedia; if they are necessary to keep an appropriate section's length OR are merely due to the fact that we not having yet found ways to fill them briefly, we can only to bide that the time, and the pratice of the constant collaboration of many people, tell us"
 * And finally, still without showing objective arguments against, he preferred to slip into the easy path of subjectiveness about spelling, accusing me to use "weasel words" ( whatever it mean, criticizing but without improving - And worst, as if his own phrase, in the same section referring to the 1920s years, did not use the same style...).
 * Anyway, all this stuff it is a thing that I will be back in the next days on the discussion page, as well in your talk page.Cybershore (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For more information on weasel words, please see WP:WEASEL. Why are you focusing solely on Lecen above? Both MBelgrano and LK are other discussing editors who have said that the info should not be added to the main article. Elockid  ( Talk ) 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not mentioned them simply because contrary to Lecen, they have been polite, civilized, respectful, and although they also have Not provided any objective counter-argument against this little sentence, I also did not saw any of them being arrogant, impositive, unpolited. Anyway, Carnival is rolling and stick typing in a cell phone is not my better option now, so as I said, we'll continue later Ok A nice night to you Cybershore (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Cybershore, I urge you to discuss with the other editors. You haven't gain any consensus previously and you must do so now. Continuing to repeat the same actions will lead to another block. Elockid  ( Talk ) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Elockid,


 * Before you taking a position, I ask that you first look at the current discussion, and after, at the history of the aforementioned article/paragraph. If you do, you will notice that I edited on March 16, only and only (and I repeat to let it clear, only) after (of almost one month of continuous debate, in which):

1st I have exposed my arguments and no one has presented any arguments against it, including (and this is very significant) the fact that I have shown that Lecen has repeatedly lied (to be polite) about a bibliographic citation (of nr.83), ie the author in the passage quoted from the book used as reference wrote one thing, and Lecen "freely" cites another (If you don't have the menionted book, this can be checked easily by using "Look Inside" tool in the Amazon Books' Website );

2nd no one has demonstrated, proved or even argued against in a historical or argumentative basis that what I wanted to edit was irrelevant, quite the contrary; observe the discussion (I again ask that you do so) and see that my argument has no counter- argument, even in my accusations regarding the use of double standards related to the disruptive edits 


 * So, I repeat that it was only after all that, that I edited on March 16.
 * And see what curious: then neither Lecen, nor anyone else complained (in discussion) or reversed (the article).


 * And so it remained for Over a Whole Month!!!


 * Well, from there, until this week, I noted however, that the paragraph had been constantly edited (again I ask that you observe the history of that article), in a way that it seemed to me, the meaning was getting half cloudy, to put it mildly, as you can see | here (see 2.3 Early Republic, 1st paragraph). And along this month, as you can see on the history of the article, nobody really cared to complain, or edit or revert... So, I fixed it on April 21, having another person later corrected a flaw in the input of a reference.


 * And “suddenly” again, appears the obsessed Lecen and made a disruptive revertion; one more time, more than a month later!!! backing to his "preferred" one, without debate, and more serious: with that same lie in the reference cited above.


 * Now, What you have to tell us about it, Dear administrator?


 * And more, what you'll do about it?


 * Yes, because if you ignore all the facts I mentioned; instead to mediate impartially, you will have friendly and passionately choosen a side (what is, let's face it, something nothing impartial)...


 * I'm waiting an prompt but impartial and objective reply,


 * And not a threat of block for someone who has not avoid the debate, and have pointed out flaws (by the way, some very serious)

Sincerely, Cybershore (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, not trying to be mean in all but you drove all, well most of the other editors away because you were unwilling to cooperate with them and basically whittled down their patience. Do you know how disruptive that is? By the way it seems, any kind of debate you're going to ignore based on your second statement. Elockid  ( Talk ) 22:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ask for counter-argument specifically related on what is being discussed, is to ignore the debate???
 * Sorry again, but it seems that is quite the contrary: not to argue with, use personal insults and "freely" create quote books, is not only ignore the debate, but also the ethics and the readers' intelligence.
 * I also repeat here what I wrote about cooperation there: " ...next time when a new edit happen, don't face it as matter of personal honor, victory or defeat. But enhance it, if you not agree, discuss it in respectful and objective basis, not being wedded to certain views of the world. "(wrote in 01:49, 8 March 2011) Cybershore (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright so I decided to fully protect the page until further notice. Perhaps we can get a discussion rolling and not play the discuss then revert game. Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote on the discussion page: " I have no fear, shame or hesitation in my mind change if / when the facts Presented Convince me. " (01:49, 8 March 2011). Unfortunately, as far now, this doesn't seem to be the case of who has repeatedly ignored the debate and made ​​disruptive reversals, among other things already reported Cybershore (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ignoring debate? Saying other people don't have "good enough" counterarguments is pretty much ignoring to me. With regards to the ignoring debate, please read what I wrote previously. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, well, well, show me where I said "not good enough arguments", where?
 * Sad to see that a people who should be impartial not even read what I wrote previously here and in the related discussion page;
 * And worst, now are putting (typing) words in mouth (hand). Not a good thing for an administrator...
 * But let's make easy your job and resume the question:
 * The "dispute" are over 2 points in the 1st paragraph about the summary of the 1st republican period of Brazilian history:
 * I arguered with arguments and quotations (not spurious ones) why the only 2 events that stand out in Brazilian foreign policy and internally - the entire set of rebellions, civillian and military (ie, not just military ones) between the 1890s and 1920s (and not just those that occurred in the 1920s) should be (briefly) mentioned in its completeness or should have found a way not to favor / decontextualize an event in favor of another.
 * First, my edits were simply reversed, without justification and with offenses (See the Revision history Page of the article, from January)
 * 2nd, after failing both to itimidate me with an block and in counter-argue, Lecen fled from debate after I exposed not only his double standards behavior, but also and mainly his use of the spurious quotation (See quote nr. 83 and Check the original, page 403, as already suggested). By the way, curious that You, who so eagerly have question me, has not uttered a syllable in relation to this serious issue...
 * Anyway, as I wrote there, I believe that Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those flawed or incomplete. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can be enhanced and fitted when appropriate, and not locked/closed (under the euphemism of "protected")... Cybershore (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"...from the Brazil talk page: 1) Again, nobody has presented any counter-argument, limiting to just stick to personal views of what it should be considered important or not, and worse, getting into the highly relative field of spelling as easy justification for scape of debate; 2) In relation to the supposed consensus, well ... No one should fear of facing groups, particularly when members of a group flatly refuse to counter-argue or deliberately choose going through the easy path of deleting, instead of improve what they criticize (spelling). Cybershore (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's basically saying your arguments are not good enough even though arguments are present in the talk page. Not directly saying it, but it's basically what the meaning is. You're right that Wikipedia is not about fighting at all nor edit warring. But it's mostly about consensus building. Consensus during disputes is the main way to "enhance" an article. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's your inference about and sad again seeing that you selectively inferred, not impartially, I feel double standard here again, for example:

when you says " even though arguments are present in the talk page ", you selectively "forget" that: 1st I responded to these arguments, and then and only then and from this point, there were no more counter-arguments presented that refute my points of view presented above.

Sure, even related to these 1st initial arguments against my case, if I behave inferring freely, I might have classified them as assertions in the "Because I said so" category.

But no. I responded them, one by one. Now, I also see that you still having nothing to say about spurious quotations Cybershore (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you seem to be "selectively forgetting" about the "exhaustion" part of the discussion. I don't know how you keep missing the point. People have a limit on their patience, you exhausted theirs. I cannot access the source for these quotations. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the only limit "exhausted" seems to be the arguments, Not patience.
 * Since those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others,
 * or trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, or attempting to divert the focus of the topic discussed....


 * Really? Couldn't You access the source of quotations? That thing, eh!


 * Let me show you: you have at least 3 options, in the case you haven't the book:
 * 1)
 * a) Go to Amazon Books Website;
 * b) In the search box, type the name of the Author "Barman, Roderick J." or the book (used as reference for the spurious quotation nr.83) "Citizen Emperor";
 * c) Click in the "Look Inside" Tool;
 * d) In the box "Search inside this book", type one word of the quotation, for example "incompetence"...
 * e) Go to the last result of the search and "Voilà!" dear administrator, you'll be there: on the page 403 of the book, go to the beginning of the last paragraph and you'll see the original quote that was infamously "distorted", "adapted", "interpreted freely" (use the term of your preference) by our obsessed, untempered, "impatient" friend...
 * 2)
 * Go to Google Books and repeat the procedure above. It will be work better and fast than in Amazon
 * 3)
 * Go to an real Bookstore, pick up the book and go to page 403... Cybershore (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @To your first statement. That is your inference. Right now, based on what other people have written, you've exhausted their patience. Note this was not just Lecen. For example, "Cybershore, it's getting harder and harder to assume good faith when it comes to your edits to this article" (from Underlying lk)
 * @To your second statement. Absolutely wrong. One can play wheel of arguments and repeat the same arguments over and over again. If you've ever engaged yourself in politics, you'll find that politicians, even ones with absolutely no "real" arguments play wheel of arguments in order for a bill or law that expires to pass the deadline for renewal or just make it fade out. Even the people you have "real" arguments are bound to get annoyed, making them lose their patience. In your situation however, it's when a person has been repeatedly argued with but is unwilling to agree. There's a term that people would call this. It's stubbornness. That's what makes people lose patience. For example, let's take the World being flat vs. round. Group A says the world is round and have arguments to support their idea. Group B says the world is flat and has also arguments. Despite arguments from Group A, Group B repeatedly "counters" as they believe with new arguments. The cycle keeps repeating until Group B appears to come up on top by having Group A just stop.
 * Lol. As you can tell, I haven't been very active. Technical difficulties on my part. But I should be good for now. Also, that isn't a book you can find at my local bookstore. By nr. 83, do you mean line 83? <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well, curious that in the meanwhile you've been showing very quickly in order to respond Lecen down there

And after almost one month later, alleging "technical difficulties" you simply continue to ignore the central issue: incredible that it took you that long to selectively mining a portion of the discussion "forgeting" my reply and the lack of counter-arguments coming from the other party, because

Again, I repeat: those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others, trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, accusing others of their own practice

or attempting to divert the focus of the topic discussed...

So, 1 more time ...I have no fear, shame or hesitation in my mind change if / when the facts Presented Convince me. " (01:49, 8 March 2011). Unfortunately, as far now, this doesn't seem to be the case of who has repeatedly ignored the debate and made ​​disruptive reversals, among other things already reported (02:24, 23 April 2011)

''I believe that Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those flawed or incomplete. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can be enhanced and fitted when appropriate, and not locked/closed (under the euphemism of "protected")...'' (03:32, 3 May 2011)

Thus, sorry but nor I, neither anybody with dignity can accept as arguments things Like "Because I said so, it is so!" "Take it or leave it".

I was very clear about the bibliographic spurious reference, the nr. 83, 3rd line in the "Early Republic" section.

Now, IF in order to Not check this, leaving behind any pretense of impartiality that you perhaps had, you prefer to bypass the step by step via Google books or amazon books suggested above, feeling more comfortable grinning nervously, claiming not to find the physical book, well... it is an ethical problem concerning to your conscience, not to my... Cybershore (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Please get your facts straight. I have responded to your statements promptly in March and April. I gave both you and Lecen an equal prompt response on May 2nd and May 7th, respectively. Each about half a day apart.
 * 2) You didn't answer my question. Perhaps you yourself have selectively been reading? I am not going to reinstate it. Your question about the spurious quotation can't be answered until then.
 * 3) You have not counter-argued my statement with regards to exhausting others' patience nor the those of really have arguments idea. But instead, repeated your previous statements. Looks like wheel of arguments to me.
 * This is the central issue. I repeat this is the central issue not whatever you're saying the central issue is. The main issue is not the content. I am just going to be blunt since you seem to be missing the whole point ever since the beginning of the argument in March. Your thoughts and actions are of the minority even if we disregard the content issue. Even in the real world, they are of the minority. You are trying to impose minority views over majority views. You may believe that they are right but there is an even greater amount of people who think they are wrong. We have a little section that you might be interested. Check out Tendentious editing.


 * You don't truly win debates by being the last person standing. No matter how many arguments you counter, that does not mean you've won the debate. You win debates by getting support from people. Well, high school and college debates are different, but in the real world debates you win through persuasion. The dispute was initially between you and Lecen. How do suppose Lecen got two more supporters (MBelgrano and Underlinglk) while you received none on the issue? Well, perhaps he was the one with "real" arguments? <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well,

1)My clear indications of how to locate the spurious reference in question are from the 08th of May, yours non-response or refusal, if you will, is dated on May 27... 20 days, almost one month...

2)about this spurious Quote/citation, on the article's talk page and here, (again) I pointed out:

1st its number on the article are 83, see Early Republic section, 3rd line and compare what is write there with the original Barman's book "Citizen Emperor" (used for citation), page 403.

2nd I initially thought it was just a faulty Quote, perhaps the result of a distracted reading by a hurried editor. But later, when the actual quote was systematically overlapped by simple revertions (disruptive and tendentious edits), I had no doubt of its pure and plain bad faith.

3)Related to consider a debate on Wikipedia as something to "win"or "lose" game, I think it unnecessary to have to re-paste my position about it, but obviously if it will prolonged and the same key will played repeatedly (as well as about my arguments and others things)... why not?

I remind you also that in the "Real World" (which the network environment are part, just to remember) when the question is to "win" hearts and minds, are many many examples, historical and present, to demonstrate that no dictator or group manages to maintain or impose themselves without the support or apathy of an majority.

Which also leads to remember that there are also numerous examples, from the "flat earth theory" to racism as well as medical practices that fell into disrepute, that were justified on pseudoscience, and even after being confronted by evidence still had the support of the majority for a long time ...an "wrong" minority has steadily and patiently grown to become a majority.

And I'm talking about really huge crowds, generations' beliefs, not just 3, 4 (particularly one, since the silence of others may also mean, among other things, abstention) guys' stubbornness in maintaining at any cost (as the trying to taking advantage of double standards, disruptive/tendentions editions, intimidation, offenses etc), a extensive but incomplete version for a section of an encyclopedia article, including a spurious quote, rather than let the things roll. Cybershore (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Obviously they were not clear. I asked you a simple question regarding it, of which you still have never directly answered. Since you seem to be so keen into not selectively reading, I will not restate the question. Since I am not an expert on Brazilian history you need to explain in this page why it spurious. You have been stating it's faulty throughout the conversation but haven't provided any real reason to why it's faulty. If you also see the history on my talk page, I haven't responded to any threads for quite awhile. Does that make you more suspicious? Or are you "selectively" choosing an instance to make a claim.
 * 2) See above
 * 3) Once again, you have not presented anything or counter to counter argue all my statements. Again, you have chosen which to "selectively" argue or read. You still did not fully answer/respond/counter to number 3. Please do so. Please do note that the minority situations you gave, gave compelling evidence. If you have compelling evidence, then present them to MBelgrano and Underlying lk. Those examples you gave are during a time where people were more rigid and conservative so they were more unwilling to accept new ideas from the minority. However, we live in a more liberal world where ideas and actions are not simply rejected based on something like religion. I can give you a lot more numerous examples where even in today's more liberal world where they're either never going to be accepted or hardly have a chance of ever going to be accepted. I'll give you a hint. Doomsday (religious such as a rapture) or Cults.


 * If you don't like the processes around here then A) I recommend that you get them amended, if you do not know the place, then I may assist you or B) Abide by them or you will be sanctioned. If you're not going to bother in reading up on policy and cooperating and getting consensus with other editors, I don't mean just Lecen, I mean both MBelgrano and Underlying lk, then there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 05:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see... Look, if an author writes something in a certain portion of a given book, and another person writes a different one, quoting his/her different phrase as if this was the original phrase contained in the book which he/she uses as a reference, changing the meaning of the original one, this is an spurious quote, mister.

The way you say, the regulation says okay if in a given article, a majority consensus, no matter how many people, seems to agree that doomsday or rapture, as described in some sects, should be interpreted literally...

But if you mean that there is no point in keep discussion with the bureaucracy here, you're right;

For now, going back to continue the debate in the clos... "protected" article, on its Talking page Cybershore (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You've basically just defined what a spurious quotation is which I already knew what it was. What is the background information that makes it spurious? How was the meaning changed? This is my question.


 * Consensus is what we go by here. The links that gave to you is a good place to go if you haven't already. If you haven't already, I recommend that you go there again. This is what the other editors have been asking you to get.  Although consensus is what we go around here, the community here at Wikipedia isn't stupid. I believe the community is intelligent enough to decipher the meaning of the descriptions of doomsday. Don't you? In order to gain consensus, people present arguments. The arguments that are the most compelling gains the most support. These days are different because people have opened up more and have given a chance towards new ideas. If your arguments were really "real" and compelling, then you should have gained the necessary support you should have. Perhaps instead of stating that others' are not using "real" arguments, you should reflect over yourself. Rather, ask yourself question, how come my arguments are not gaining any support?


 * Honestly, if your arguments are like "That's your inference" (I used it too, but I was making a point with it. I can elaborate on this if you wish) or "those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others, trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, accusing others of their own practice" then you need to redefine what it means to have a "real" argument because these were IMHO pretty weak counterarguments. These arguments are not compelling. As you have described yourself in the minority, the that's what you think argument pretty much completely lessens it's effectiveness and has negative implications. Restating arguments as you did with the losing patience argument does not add to the conversation especially when there is no further counterargument after that.


 * If you're more curious to why I said, "If you're not going to bother in reading up on policy and cooperating and getting consensus with other editors, I don't mean just Lecen, I mean both MBelgrano and Underlying lk, then there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further", here's the reason. If you can't help me help you, then there is no point in continuing discussion because you will undoubtedly get blocked for not abiding by policy anyways. You can't just break rules to further your own agenda. Throughout the whole situation, here's what you've been basically saying. Okay guys, instead of just destroying the improvement, improve the improvement I've made. So my question is, why force everyone to improve your edit while they disagree with it? You can't just force people to like whatever you're doing when they don't like it. Making them improve on something they don't like is a big no no. It's human nature to seek better options. As I stated previously, I believe the editors in the community are intelligent enough to decipher what's right and wrong or what's better and what's worse. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 11:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"What is the background information that makes it spurious? How was the meaning changed? This is my question."
 * Okay,
 * To explain why I believe in the spuriousness of the quote in question, I restart pasting the two quotations:
 * The original found in the book: "the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence.",
 * While the edit in the "Early Republic" section of Brazil's article says "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence". The citations are different.


 * Some may argue that since the quotation marks are located at the point where the phrases are identical "a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence", there wouldn't be any problem... technically ...But, technicalities apart, the question is the meaning of the whole sentences are completely different:


 * One quotation says that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability,
 * while another, using the first one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability.


 * Thus, spurious quotation aside, is also a spurious correlation. Why not let try to fix?


 * Some may argue that even the original statement of the book, that blames the naval revolt of 1893 for having alone, triggered an whole cycle of instability is questionable, since the instability in financial area eg had already been triggered in 1891 by the "encilhamento" crisis, which was the first big crash of the Brazilian financial market.


 * But I don't believe that an error on another error can make a right. Especially, if this accumulation of imprecisions is reflected also in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, where (I'll also play this discussion, since there) this same flaw occurs.


 * "It's human nature to seek better options. ...the community are intelligent enough to decipher what's right and wrong or what's better and what's worse."
 * Yeah, Absolutely! Especially if this community isn't closed/"protected" to/from itself, and/or the improvements don't become hindered by disruptive/tendencious edits of 1 same person... Cybershore (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did the naval revolt lead into the Republican civilians into power or is there really dispute within Brazilian scholars that led into instability?


 * Perhaps you could also try WikiProject Brazil to get more opinions since I'm not an expert. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Elockid,

about it there is no disput, at least in Brazil among Brazilian scholars...

Since the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.

Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government, for 1894, much before 1893's events.

Furthermore, in Brazil even among monarchists and advocates of the military regimes agree that when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes as the majors consequences of 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country), were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.

So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference (right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here) did not wrote it.

Now, Again, I´m no nuts to wanna, neither be the "right guy" nor do the "ultimate" version of the "Early Republic" section, in "Brazil" article.

I remind one more time that: my edit of this section of March 16 (not a Great edit, not "the best edit", not a "sacred wrote in the stone" edit, just one more among many others to be constantly improved) stood there over whole month with nobody complaining (in discussion) or reversing.

Only when I noted that the paragraph had been constantly edited (again I ask that you observe the history of that article), in a way that the meaning was getting half cloudy, as you can see | here (see 2.3 Early Republic, 1st paragraph), and along this month (as you can see on the history of the article), as nobody really cared to complain or edit about it, I fixed it (without an reversion) on April 21, having another person later corrected a flaw in the input of a reference;

And... was only then that this stuff started again, with a disruptive revertion, one more time, more than a month later!!! Backing to "sacred" one, with the identical spuriousness about the reference and on correlation both cited above.

But in reality, I must thank that this is happening, otherwise, I guess such details, among others, wouldn't be disclosed here prior to new edits Cybershore (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite interesting. Thanks for the explanation. I am planning to unprotect the article in a week. I will request that the other editors continue the discussion. Would you be willing to participate in the discussion? <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! Cybershore (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Brazil
( Elockid, ) Thanks for warning me, but Cybershore has made the discussion unbearable already. So huge are his messages that I hardly believe someone will have the patience to actually take a look and read it. Since no one will answer he will believe that that is a sign of support for him and he will add his piece of text once more (he whas been trying to do that for.. 2 years now). He didn't care before when 3 editors opposed him (and went as far to believe that 2 other editors supported him, although they didn't) and won't care now. I added myself a message there but that's all I'm going to do. But thank you for being kind on coming to me to tell about the discussion that was reopened. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't weep Lecen and please, No lame excuses ok
 * My points related why to edit the "Early Republic" section in the article "Brazil" are summarized there in 3 parts, clearly separate. Just 3 points ;) Cybershore (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough. I can't deal with his ironies ("dear monarchist", etc...) and insulting behavior ("Don't weep Lecen and please, No lame excuses ok"). Don't know why we're still losing our time with him. Good luck there. --Lecen (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Lecen, if you can not deal with irony and sarcasm, then don't be the 1st to use them. That's simple, because this is a two-way game. So dear impatient fellow, if you don't want to treat well at all people, not only those people who you believe are "above" of you or from those who you need a favour, next time keep your roughness to yourself.
 * Now, back to the focal points of debate, that what it's about. Cybershore (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * @Cybershore: what Lecen says about big walls of text is true, well from what seen in the web. Try to keep the text to a minimum.


 * And guys, let's try to be friendly here, okay? <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you taken the trouble to read all, point to point, you will see that there is no word thrown out.
 * Of course, if the person has been unwilling to really join the discussion, will not have "patience" or tolerance to read and, if she/he think it's the case, counterargument point to point the other side, mainly if she/he thinks don't need do that 'cause imagine that "owns the space", having strong patron, so long being accustomed to depart collaboration of anyone who doesn't fit into his/her world view, editing disruptively, keeping unpunished.


 * Debate takes work my friends, if the person doesn't really want all that work, simply don't start it or stay alway from it. It's better than pretending that it cares.
 * Sad but no surprise that to this point is still given more importance to form than the content and denunciations.
 * Anyway, regarding future edits, you can rest assured, I'll keep holding it a minimum size, as usual, but without spuriousness or historical inconsistency...


 * In relation to be friendly, well ... by no means I condescend with arrogance, impoliteness and double standards. If the person treats me well, Okay She/He will be treated as well. If not, don't expect me to turn the other cheek, as well as it will useless to this person as discussant keep an loller attitude while proceed dissimulating, playing the victim role or/and due the lack of maturity and arguments try to hide behind of forms or the skirt bar of someone else. It will not work. Cybershore (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the golden rule. But really, can't you guys just try to relax? <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Since no one will answer he will believe that that is a sign of support for him and he will add his piece of text once more (he whas been trying to do that for.. 2 years now)." I told you so. This is why this article will never become featured. But let it be. It's not worth the trouble. --Lecen (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguments with consistent proofs and detailed references in english, not spuriousness loaded with weeping no argumentative, that what it's about the current edition of that section, dear fellow! Cybershore (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning
I came here because I want to use this as an evidence that I had warned you about your behavior. No one has support your claims and you still revert them. If you don't stop I will have no other option than to report you at the ANI and ask for your block. --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning?
 * ''Why not surprise me that only now, after a year and a half, you "deign" to reply directly, and even so Not to talk civilly directly, but only to guard yourself in sight of people who you consider "interesting" to your purposes, and with this kind of threat?!
 * Also, no surprise that you instead of counter-argument, use (again) of your network to enforce your biased view.


 * Now, answer me, since when pointing the truth substantiated by facts over 1 and half year, which you did not refute (even because on the evidence presented above, there is no way), is to insult someone?


 * Change your agressive way or stop playing the victim and take the consequences of your actions,
 * because in your case, it's a really sad that your ego supplant your intelligence,
 * anyway...
 * Cybershore (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Don't try to manipulate people in a so primary way, Lecen. Stick to the arguments in question"
 * "Editions substantiated in facts must not be confused with personal attacks, btw a thing that you do routinely..."
 * "And Simple doesn't mean spurious or intellectual dishonesty"
 * "But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged"
 * "Change your agressive way or stop playing the victim and take the consequences of your actions"
 * "it's a really sad that your ego supplant your intelligence"
 * You asked me "...since when pointing the truth substantiated by facts ... is to insult someone?" The few examles above are a good answer. I don't even know Daniel J. Leivick and Cambalachero and I clashed several times. You should really stop making false accusations. I already told you that the reason to why your additions aren't needed it's because the article must be brief. Everyone else has agreed with me. No one so fr has agreed with you. You can not ignore everyone for much longer. I'm asking you, nicely, to listen to everyone else and to stop with the personal attacks against me. --Lecen (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, in the case of your selective memory have forgotten, everything I mentioned is referenced (above) throughout this discussion that lasts for 1 year and a half, and is related to some of your procedures (not to you personally) and to the contents of the text.
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to discuss anything with you. Even more after you went after other people to accuse me of bein part of a "cabal". You must understand, once and for all, that no one has supported the inclusion of your text. No one. Not a single human being. Everyone has OPPOSED it. I don't know why is so hard to understand that, but it's not my problem. I already warned you. If you revert it again or if you insult me again I will report you. --Lecen (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Everyone else has agreed with me." "Everyone has OPPOSED it."
 * Not really. Omit, is another story.
 * "Even more after you went after other people to accuse me of bein part of a "cabal"."
 * If you had seen the timeline of my page conversation, would have noticed that the term was brought to me for free. But really, if you want to wear the cowl, who am I to say to the contrary, go ahead. Even more so now, that shows you (once again) be averse to dialogue.
 * I do not fear threats or unfair blocks, as you already should know at this point. And since you want to keep your offensive behavior, including playing the victim, and try to impute to others your own practices; here we go again!
 * In the sequel, on Brazil Talk page, once again I'll remind about the spurious character of present edition above mentioned
 * Cybershore (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Brazil with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, Quinxorin (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, everything I mentioned is referenced throughout this discussion that lasts for 1 year and a half, and is related to some of his procedures (not him personally) and to the contents of the text.
 * So I ask you equality, see the points raised by me, to before jump to conclusion, get to be impartial! Since his behavior is plenty of which he accuses me.
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has lasted for more than a year because you insist to re-add your content over and over when no one seems to notice. If you listen t owhat the others are saying things wouldn't have got so far. --Lecen (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is Not "MY" content Lecen, as I don't consider the present version "YOUR".
 * So much case for a thing that "nobody" seems to notice, hum?
 * If your posture (as my one, but in response) was not so aggressive, things wouldn't have gone so far.
 * What, again in the case of a guy with your level of intelligence, is a waste of talent


 * Anyway, if you're willing, I'm willing to reset everything and start from zero a direct dialogue with you, exposing my points, one by one, calmly, and hearing your considerations about, as long as you also keep a civilized stance
 * Cybershore (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Cabals on Wikipedia
You may wish to read WP:SCREW. Quinxorin (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,
 * I just do not understand why no action has yet been taken in relation to this...
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:

'''Best to read over BOLD, revert, discuss cycle before someone blocks you
 * Dispute resolution requests details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions. '''Moxy (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st, is not me, who is simply reverting disruptively the article;
 * 2nd My reasons and denunciations about why I made the edition, are present in the article's talk page for days without anyone disputing it;


 * So, please back there and calmly ready to know the details of the discussion, before jumping to an conclusion.
 * If you don't have the time or willingness to do so, please pass the case to someone who can!
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it takes more then one editor to edit war. The talk page info  I believe is   not being replied to because its an incoherent  wall of text -  as is the info being added to the article. Would be best to post the changes on the talk page and ask for a copy edit of the info for proper English. I see your frustrated and it may be best to ask others to get involved  see Requests for comment its easy and fast. Moxy (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but redirect to these templates definitively didn't help.
 * Please, be practical in your resolutions, and not simply leave in the charge of the User, for him(her) turn around on confused templates, real walls of text, if you know what I mean...
 * If they are easy for anyone already using them, I don't know. But they definitely are not fast;
 * So, could you be more specific?
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Judge by yourselves!..

 * What you are adding is almost completely incoherent to a native speaker. Your talk page posts are also very hard to follow.
 * I frankly have no idea what you are talking about. You may want to some up the changes you would like to make in simple terms, here on the talk page.  Further edit warring will probably result in a block. -- Daniel  16:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again:
 * "what do you want to add or change(?)"
 * I - What I changed in relation to the previous version:
 * The content of the text, especially related to the concatenation of events (with their links and/or references), as can be seen analyzing the 2 versions.


 * II - What I added: links and references to respective events, some of which were not in the previous version, eg. the 1st naval revolt, Encilhamento, sequential references to the main civilian and military uprisings of that period, as well as the only issues of foreign policy.


 * '' The reasons ", the" Why ":
 * I - The prior narration was not only truncated due to serious gaps related to some of the key events of that time (both internal and external);
 * II - but also contained partial references and biased inferences regarding the cause of the events, having even spurious bibliographic citations "justifying" such inferences.


 * And all this with the difference, between the 2 versions, of only 3 lines... (difference that can always be reduced without adding the mentioned vices of the previous edition)


 * Note: Curious, as some do and undo articles at their whim, without anyone even check the sources, the plausibility or the neutrality of the statements contained in such articles, while others have to justify and re_justify fundamental changes...
 * Cybershore (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, despite I don't understand how someone could engages in a discussion without first at least try to learn the details of it,
 * If you're really interested in this discussion, and not just to disruptively block its editing,
 * please (one more time) be sure to read the sections Spurious quotations and The heart of this Case
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to ask for help at Translation... this way you can speak in your native language and get replies in that language aswell.Moxy (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
Cybershore, I've blocked you for a week for your last comment at Talk:Brazil. You've been warned numerous times about personal attacks and yet you have persisted. I have tried to help you, but I'm concerned about your behavior. When your block expires, you may return to the discussion, but I strongly recommend you refrain from attacking other editors and try to be more concise with your comments. Considering your ability with the English language it would be best to try to write shorter simpler comments. -- Daniel 15:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cybershore, after carefully looking over your additions to the article (even with my changes to your grammer), I see that they are redundant and add nothing, while making some things less clear. I oppose their addition. -- Daniel  15:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What "additions" specifically you're talking about (so I can adjust or respond)? Why, again this double standard behavior related just to one part; since, I answered all the objections one by one, while the seriously and gravely accusation made ​​up by me, and proved, repeatedly, throughout this year and a half about spurious quote remains ignored???

And Please answer this time:

1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?

2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be? Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???

3) Which group of honest editors ...who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it?  Cybershore (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statements are very hard to understand. I don't know what "spurioness" means in English.  Once your block expire you may make your case clearly on the talk page, but do not edit war to include your changes to the article.  Consensus is opposed to these changes.  I've looked carefully at your suggested changes and find them to be inferior to the original content, muddling issues and making the entire section less clear.  This seems to have political implications to you, but as a neutral party I do not see them.  The current version seems to be neutral.  -- Daniel  19:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't know what "spurioness" means in English"
 * What a curious, I believed that only machines could not find in their memories misspelled words ...Interesting to see that some humans also have this selective limitation...
 * What a curious II, that an administrator of an electronic publication simply "doesn't know" such meaning... Oh!
 * Well, may be | this or | this can help you remin... understand what spuriousness means. Not mention the 3rd paragraph of  this link in Brazil Talk Page about an famous example of writer's misquotations, fabricated quotes, fake quotes or whatever term you prefer...


 * Now that you are aware of the meaning of the term, I suggest that you read the this section ;) to remind you the tendentious, non neutral, biased and unethical feature of the whole paragraph of the version that you support.


 * After it, please answer the above questions
 * Have a good day :)
 * Cybershore (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've offered you what help I could, but you choose to revert war, insult other editors and continue posting long blocks of incoherent text on talk pages. Not only that you foolishly evaded your block simply to post the above text on my talk page, despite the fact that I've repeatedly asked you not to double post like this. There appear to be real issue of competence here. Unless you change your behavior I don't see how this can work.  -- Daniel  06:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, since when pointing one's flaws or responding in the same mode are insults?
 * And since I see that you continue to ignore my serious denunciations,
 * besides seeing certain behaviors in a selective way, from disruptive revertions to insulting attitudes and comments, not to mention that there still not even a word about the evidences exposed...
 * I can say that my feelings about competence and behavior change, are reciprocal


 * Well, by now I hope that you at least had become aware about the meaning of the word "spuriousness"....
 * Have a good day
 * Cybershore (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really think that you don't understand how little sense the things you write make. This sentence for example: "Come on, since when pointing one's flaws or responding in the same mode are insults?" Only through careful examination and rereading it several times did I realize that it is missing an "is", without which the sentence was meaningless.   This is the same issue as your typo with "spurioness" which you continue to bring up.  Maybe to you these are simple mistakes that people should be able to look past, but in reality they make your writing almost unreadable, not in an aesthetic sense, but in a practical sense and they are so frequent it poses a serious problem.  It requires serious effort to parse what you are trying to say and isn't even always possible.  You saw the effort that was required to "translate" your proposed changes, do you seriously not understand how your dialogue on these talk pages might be equally difficult to understand?
 * In response to what I can discern from your post, there is a serious distinction between pointing out one's behavioral issues and comparing them to disgraced journalists like Jonah Lehrer. You've been warned repeatedly to stop making personal attacks so I see no excuses here.  I have no idea what your "serious denunciations" are, you have not phrased them is a coherent fashion nor do I see any "evidences exposed."  Unless you are going to make a simple coherent explanation for your behavior beyond "I know you are but what am I?" I'm done responding to you. -- Daniel  15:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I could list here examples throughout history, where "problems of mutual understanding" regarding the language, even among natives of an same language, has been used to selectively ignore fair doubts, claims, appeals, complaints, etc...
 * But, to not make this answer "too big",
 * and mainly considering (once more) your answer as good faith and not as an attempt of tergiversation,


 * and before ask you why do you discern a serious distinction between what I'm pointing and what, in general, in publications (whether paper or electronic) that claim to be neutral, usually leads historians, journalists, editors and commentators to, at least, be warned, by not follow certain guidelines of editorial standards involving accuracy and/or impartiality,


 * or ask you specific questions about double standard (ie an editor makes me baseless accusations in a certain tone, I respond to him in the same mode, but specifically to those charges, and only me is who become warned and blocked);


 * I ask you, what in this section are not clear to you?
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I gather from the paragraph you reference, you would like to change "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, followed by a "prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence." to this "the naval revolt of September 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence." I don't see anything especially problematic aside from the fact that the manner in which you suggested it was incredibly verbose and difficult to understand. Unfortunately, you were making a whole series of other changes in addition to this single change, many of which I have shown you to be incomprehensible to a native speaker. Like I have said before, when your block expires you may return to the Talk:Brazil and make a case for this change.  I strongly recommend you focus on being more concise and clear in your posts, if you do that it is possible that your communication will be effective.  At this point I have nothing more to say. -- Daniel  18:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see...
 * And what's about:
 * your distinction between what I'm pointing and what, in general, in publications (whether paper or electronic) that claim to be neutral, usually leads historians, journalists, editors and commentators to, at least, be warned,
 * by not follow certain guidelines (used to try safeguard this neutrality), like the use of fake quotes?


 * And about your, even if unconscious, double standard warn/block practice?

Cybershore (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a "fake quote" it is an nuanced issue of context. The sentence you have issues with was outside of the quote.  You may be right about the change in context changing the meaning, I don't have any idea, but the tactics you have used to effect your desired changes have been disruptive (not to mention wholly ineffective) and thus you find yourself blocked.  If you genuinely think I am in the wrong you are welcome to use the unblock template and seek other opinions.  -- Daniel  18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really?!
 * Response below on "judge yourselves II"
 * Cybershore (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Block lengthened
You were blocked. While blocked, you edited without logging in in order to evade the block. I therefore increased the length of your block and also blocked the IP number that you used. You are welcome to appeal against the block. (Incidentally, any administrator who thinks that the block should be shortened or ended is welcome to do so without consulting me.) Or of course you can just sit it out: after it has ended, your constructive edits will be welcome. However, further attempts to evade the block will merely get you into deeper trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Obvious that I consider my block unfair. But you know what? Sorry, but dealing with bureaucracy appealing to its deaf ears, having to decipher and fit oneself to walls of bureaucratic text, made ​​purposely in a confused way, doesn't seem to be a reliable option. Cybershore (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Judge by yourselves II
"It is not a "fake quote" it is an nuanced issue of context.  The sentence you have issues with was outside of the quote.  You may be right about the change in context changing the meaning,  "I don't have any idea" Daniel  18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...(ºº/)
 * And yet there are those who wonder why Wikipedia is not taken seriously in academic and journalistic environments, among other places...
 * Cybershore (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"If you genuinely think I am in the wrong you are welcome to use the unblock template and seek other opinions." Daniel 18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again (repeating myself ...once more - see the above "Block lengthened" section):
 * Obvious that I consider my block unfair


 * mainly considering - it never too much to remind - that
 * an editor have done over a year and a half baseless accusations over me in a certain rude tone,
 * During all this time, I have responded to him in the same mode, but specifically to those charges,
 * not having any left unanswered, unlike him...
 * ...and only me is who was warned and blocked.
 * Cybershore (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So (again, related to appeal from block),
 * sorry but dealing with bureaucracy appealing to its deaf ears, having to decipher and fit oneself to walls of bureaucratic text, made ​​purposely in a confused way, doesn't seem to be a reliable option.


 * Even because, dear fellow too selectively (in a double standard way) concerned about the form and little about the content,
 * Considering that if you, who should mediate this case impartially, besides not do it:


 * 1) has shown great reluctance to read the material concerning to this case (oh my god, those "huge blocks" of "incoherent text" again)


 * 2) and admits that you doesn't even know some basic aspects of Brazilian history;


 * What I would expect from someone else who got far in this discussion?
 * Have a good week \0/
 * Cybershore (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Brazil; "Summary of operations" (so far)
To the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful ones:

See above The heart of this Case; As well as the sections Spurious Quotations, Once Again, and sections Warning to Judge by yourselves II in my Talk Page;

To note that 1) from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose, no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed, even taking into account that the present version: 1.1) incurs spurious quote in the 1st paragraph, 1.2) also have too detailed and redundant information (for an article that are supposed to be short...) on the 2nd paragraph, and 1.3) besides be longer, are incomplete, vague and non neutral in the 3rd...

2) How not to think in double standard when:

The last disruptive revertion, besides be longer than the version I propose (2.1), was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above (again... See above points A to E in "Once Again" section ) that were related only to the 2nd paragraph (of the version I propose 2.2); and that 2.3) No word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the 1st paragraph, as well as against or about the 3rd paragraph, that according to some editor (Ctr F on word "solid" to see above, on the discussion about grammar in the "Once Again" section), was "pretty solid"...

And even so, the revertion was done...

So, I again ask you all:

1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?

2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?

Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???

3) Which group of honest editors, ladies and gentlemen, who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it? Cybershore (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work with you on this. Please suggest a specific change to the article in a concise and clear manner and we can discuss whether they are appropriate.  Let's just start with the first change you would like to make and go from there ok? -- Daniel  05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, before we start, I just want to make it clear once again that I don't have anything against (and would be irrational so) anyone personally.
 * And, although I believe there is no historical version that can be completely neutral and free from bias, and is that even healthy that people can compare conflicting versions (within a reasonable scope of rationally),
 * my position is that there are certain statements and omissions in the historical part of the article, that are unacceptable in an encyclopedic article, and therefore must be remedied.
 *  They are 4 (a minor one in the Colonial section, and the rest in "early republic" Section). 

Early Republic; 1st paragraph

 * So, let us start with the proposed changes of 1rst paragraph of the section "early republic":''


 * From what has been discussed so far, what is still not clear to you, regarding this paragraph - points 1.1 and 2.1 above ?
 * Reminding below how got my last proposition agreed above (concerning to the debate regarding the grammar of it):
 *  "The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship.* Following the bubble of encilhamento** and the 1st naval revolt, the country entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by several rebellions, both civilian*** as military.*** Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "    (*) Spaces related to citations
 * Cybershore (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is an improvement. It doesn't mention how or when the civilian government rose to power 1894 and the expansion of Brazil's boundaries both of which seems to be important.  I take it you have issues with the second quote that is currently used in the section.  If we were to just change that, what would you propose? --18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st Please, don't forget to sign before leave yr comment


 * 2nd No, you saw pretty wrong - the 2nd quote of the version I propose is not present in the current version.


 * 3rd Again... One more time... the present version has a serious flaw, as I put above in the section Spurious Quotations, by using a book citation in a spurious way doubly, not only by stating a different thing from the original citation, but mainly acting so, leaving a implicit meaning totally different from the original quote (To refresh your memory:) " The original book citation states that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability, while the present version using the 1st one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability."
 * "Thus, spurious quotation aside, also a spurious correlation."


 * So, if to one:
 * a) eliminate such spuriousness and
 * b) put the appropriate initial causes of the instability of this period with proper references
 * is not an improvement... Well, it would become not just hard, but impossible to believe in this one's good faith, as well as it would be the confirmation of this one's selective double standard behavior...


 * 4th Concerning to the civilians' rising to power in the end of 1894, it was implied in some of my previous versions...
 * which also, after more than a year... were not improved neither discussed, but disruptively reverted...
 * Anyway... for now, how about(?):
 *  "The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship.* Following the bubble of encilhamento** and the 1st naval revolt, the country entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by rebellions, both civilian*** as military,*** that even with the ascension to power of civilians at the end of 1894, did not stop. Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "
 * Oooor...
 * "The early Brazilian republican period was nothing more than a military dictatorship,* and pretty before the civilians rise to power in 1894, following 2 severe crisis, an economic and a military,** the country has entered into a prolonged cycle of general instability marked by rebellions, both civilian*** as military.***' Little by little these rebellions undermined the regime in a such extent that by 1930, in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, to lead a revolt.* "


 * And Last but not Least, concerning to changes of Brazil's boundaries in the early 20th century, it is already there in the version I propose, in the foreign affairs, 3rd paragraph (that same one, which yourself considered "pretty solid")...


 * So, any more doubts about this paragraph?
 * Cybershore (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the quote you have issues with. What is currently wrong with the section? -- Daniel  06:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one issue at a time:
 * The last sentence of the 1st paragraph truncates the narrative by jumps from one subject (internal policy) to another (foreign policy), before falling from the sky after decades to following paragraph without even suggest the reason of 1920s military revolts (not to mention that even remotely touches the civilian ones).
 * To remedy the last flaw of this paragraph, and with citations (easy to check) in English (other section's defect: too many sources in Portuguese, one of them is not even specific to Brazilian history) and
 * before to deal with the 2nd paragraph [ one issue at a time :) ], I propose to let the 1st paragraph fine and end the discussion about this paragraph:
 * that the mention concerning to changes of Brazil's boundaries in the early 20th century (even because, the border issue of Acre, in addition to not being the only one of that era, contained in itself a military phase, among others, having not been characterized or reduced to a mere purchase...), be placed at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph in the foreign affairs:
 *  "In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of the republican period,* was followed by a failed attempt to exert a prominent role in the League of Nations,* after its involvement in World War I.***" ;
 * more or less eg as I had proposed, both with a neutral point of view and specific easily checking citations in english...


 * So, if you agree to it in relation to the 1st paragraph, I will talk about my suggestions of changes regarding the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and (again) why of it...
 * Cybershore (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I think we're in agreement about the first paragraph: Leaving it as it is now and moving the last sentence to the third paragraph. Let's move on to your suggestions about the second paragraph. -- Daniel  15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Republic; 2nd paragraph
Right, For the 2nd paragraph, the why (for what needs to be done), and how (suggestions) - 1st, the why:

besides the 1) excessive number of bibliographical citations in Portuguese, which I claim to be unneeded, since there is abundant literature in English dealing with the subject; My suggestion is that (keeping the paragraph short, btw depending on the option to be chosen, even shorter), must be also fixed:

2) the truncation of the narrative, referring to fix the correlational gaps of 2.1 the beginning of the republic and the military rebellions of the 1920s, and to 2.2 the mentions about all revolts of the 1930s, and not just the communist one, Or - 2.2.1 - to maintain coherence, don' mention any (1930s) revolt specifically, in the manner suggested below

3) (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail. In this case, inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period I refer specifically to this passage  "The repression of the opposition was brutal with more than 20,000 people imprisoned, internment camps created for political prisoners in distant regions of the country, widespread torture by the government agents of repression, and censorship of the press.**" ; which can be summarized as suggested (see suggestion about Point 3) below

My suggestions for How - Regarding to: Point 1, use the abundant literature in English dealing with the subject, as some which I used

Point 2.1, a variation of what I had proposed: '' "Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, through various civilian and military rebellions, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas, supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt." '' Or, shorter '' "Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt." ''

Points 2.2, 2.2.1 and 3 (bold letters)  "Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. " 

Thus (following the justifications above), one possibility of how the entire paragraph could be:

 "Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead a successful revolt. Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their supporters, having defeated between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove them from power. Being the 1935 communist one served as an excuse for they preclude elections, launching a coup d'état in 1937, making their regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails. " 

Note that, besides Not contain the defects stated above, even With the phrase  "in the wake of the murder of his running mate, " - this possible version is by far a shorter paragraph than the present version. Cybershore (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty good to me. I'd make the following changes for clarity:
 * Little by little, a cycle of general instability sparked by these crises undermined the regime in a such extent, that by 1930 in the wake of the murder of his running mate, it was possible for the defeated opposition presidential candidate Getúlio Vargas supported by most of the military, lead led a successful revolt. Vargas and the military who supported him, were supposed claimed he intended to assume the power temporarily, but instead they closed the Congress, extinguished the Constitution, ruled with emergency powers and replaced the states' governors with their his supporters. having defeated Between 1932 and 1938, 3 major attempts to remove Vargas from power occurred. The first being the 1935 communist revolt which served as an excuse for they preclude the preclusion ofelections, put into effect by a coup d'état in 1937, making which made their the Vargas regime a full dictatorship, with all that this entails noted for its brutality and censorship of the press'.
 * We don't need to mention military support twice and the "with all that entails" is ambiguous and we should explain what that means. -- Daniel 21:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this looks fine to me, with just an observtion, and a little rectification:
 * The rectification; the communist revolt was not the first (attempt to remove Vargas), but the second one.
 * The observation, to avoid future basic problems, it would be well that the sentence "Vargas claimed he intended to assume power temporarily" should have the usual and clear english easily checking citation, if not used a simple one (for achieve related citation) "Vargas, who was supposed to assume power temporarily"


 * Anyway, it seems to me that we can go now to the 3rd paragraph
 * Cybershore (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Republic; 3rd paragraph
My suggestions and justifications related to it:

Besides the 1) above mentioned reason concerning bibliographical citations in Portuguese, my reasons and suggestions about what to fixed:

2) As in the previous paragraph (Regarding the briefness of the paragraph); remove the excess of detail inferred from a magazine in Portuguese. Again, details that can be contained in other more specific articles of Wikipedia, related to the history of that period I refer specifically to this passage  "Vargas then forced German, Japanese and Italian immigrants into concentration camps" .

Besides being a subject that should be detailed in specific articles, the sentence, as written, denotes another spurious correlation for 2 reasons: 1st Because it gives the impression (to those who doesn't know the topic) that all Germans, Italians and Japanese immigrants (and their descendants) were interned then in concentration camps, as what happened to the Japanese-Americans in the U.S. at those times; 2nd the own magazine article makes it very clear right from its subtitle "Hundreds of immigrants were interned in farmlands during WWII", then specifying along the article, cases regarding such imprisonments

3) Fix the two last sentences, since as they are now  "Democracy was reinstated and General Eurico Gaspar Dutra was elected president"  /  "...but he was incapable of either governing under a democracy or of dealing with an active opposition, and he committed suicide in 1954" ; besides being longer, incomplete, vague and non neutral, can also give rise to spurious inferences. So, I propose that it be changed to what we agreed when we talked specifically about grammar, with the citation used then (McCann; Frank D. "Soldiers of the Patria: A History of the Brazilian Army, 1889-1937" Stanford University Press 2004, Page 441: "The elected government over which Dutra presided from 1946 to 1951 was supported by the conservative interventionist army and not a suddenly democratic entity. ...[Then] Dutra drew a significant parallel: "Thus it was on November 15, 1889 and on October 29, 1945." To him, the overthrow of Pedro II and of Getúlio Vargas were analogous and for the same purpose - "For the greatness of Brazil" '').

Therefore, including our concordance above about changing and moving the present last sentence (concerning about the 3 only issues related to pre-Vargas Brazilian foreign policy of this 1st Republican period) of the 1st paragraph to the 3rd paragraph; My main suggestion concerning this paragraph, is the same that we had previously agreed:

"In foreign policy, the success in resolving border disputes with neighboring countries in the early years of the republican period was followed by a failed attempt to exert a prominent role in the League of Nations, after its involvement in World War I. In World War II Brazil remained neutral until August of 1942, when the country entered in that war on the allied side, after suffer retaliations undertaken by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, due the country have severed diplomatic relations with them in the wake of Pan-American Conference. With the allied victory in 1945 and the end of the Nazi-fascist regimes in Europe, Vargas's position became unsustainable and he was swiftly overthrown in another military coup, being the Democracy "reinstated" by the same army that had discontinued it 15 years before. Vargas committed suicide in August 1954 amid a political crisis, after having returned to power by election in 1950" Cybershore (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It must be really, really hard to you to understand that. For the past three years you have been insisting on adding your piece of text. That's weird. No one has supported you and you need to understand that. --Lecen (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Cybershore's proposed change may be an improvement, but I don't see why he is intent on removing information about internment. If it needs to be clarified so be it, but it seems to be an important part of the history of that period.  Beyond that, Cybershore's text is clear and more comprehensive without being overly long. -- Daniel  15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Daniel ,
 * Regarding the issue about prison of Italians, Germans and Japanese Immigrants/descendents, my justification is above, but if even so, you deems appropriate the inclusion of this information in summary of this period, I would ask you a suggestion on how this should be done briefly, without contains the same spurious inferences detailed above.
 * As to substantiating citations for this passage (preferably in English, and easy checking), we can all work together
 * Cybershore (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find much information on the topic and it isn't covered on the main article on the Vargas regime, perhaps it doesn't need to be mentioned here. -- Daniel 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Brazil
You are at 6 reverts which is 2x3RR. Please stop, otherwise a report has to be filed. Thanks in advance. Dr.  K.  04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First, it's not me who started such edit war, reverting editions without justifications (please pay attention the time line of article revision history). So, I ask you to read the WHOLE discussion (including the previous on same subject filed  HERE), following it; in order to avoid play a double standard at this issue. Thanks Cybershore (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I am completely external to this dispute I simply wanted to point out to you that 6 reverts are completely unacceptable. There is simply no exemption for your reverts and no excuse. You should know better than that. That's all. As far as who is right or wrong, I have no idea. My only motivation was to stop this edit-war. That is why I warned all parties to the dispute. I did not take any sides. My revert of your edit was based on the fact that your version was strongly disputed and that you did so many reverts that if that version stood it would a reward editing tactics favouring edit-warring, something that should always be avoided in favour of talkpage discussion. Dr.   K.  19:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "As far as who is right or wrong, I have no idea." Well, I guess you should …Anyway, since yr motivation was to stop the edit-war, warning All involved; I hope from now that other parts first talk about their justifications before any finger actions. Regards, Cybershore (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's not confuse the issues here. The primary issue is the edit-warring and it had to stop, so I tried my hand at stopping it. The content issue has nothing to do with me. I came in to stop the edit-war. The content is up to the involved editors. I am uninvolved in that. However, I'm glad you are discussing now. Dr.   K.  21:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So, still without understanding why the article was reverted and locked precisely for a version of who started such edit-war and so far has refused to talk. Anyway... Cybershore (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If by "refused to talk" you mean me, you are still approaching this from the wrong angle. I explained in my edit-summary that I could not allow brute-force tactics to prevail. I am still uninvolved and wish to remain so, so I will not participate in the talkpage discussion so that I can remain uninvolved. Consider that I could easily have reported you at the 3RR noticeboard but I chose not to do so. Given your block log that could easily have resulted in a long block. Consider this a favour and we are even. Dr.   K.  20:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you feel that the shoes were fit to you, but the reference "refusal to dialogue" was and is specifically to the person who started the edit-war and the concerning Talk Page. Now, once you didn't abuse of power, good job, but nothing to boast. Cybershore (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I can agree with your points. Sorry for the misunderstanding regarding the shoes. :) All the best to you. Dr.   K.  02:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Allies of World War II
Could you review your decision to omit Colombia and Cuba, in the light of Battle of the Caribbean? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if we were to put each country that joined allies without have sent a single soldier to any land front, the flagboard would be extremely loaded. There is already a world map in the general board of the article for such purpose. Cybershore (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)