User talk:Ninguém

(Hipocricy removed)

Dated comments
Hi. I see you are replacing your old name with your new name in your comments on various talk pages. I don't see the purpose for this, but I guess it isn't too disruptive. You shouldn't be changing the dates, though, because that makes it difficult to understand the flow of the conversation. Could you please stop changing the dates? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you've been replacing the old sigs with ~. Please don't do that, since although it's easier, it does change the date. Instead, copy-paste only the username into the old sig, leaving the old dates as they are, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, it highlights the changes you've made, which I don't think you want to happen: I see you haven't done too many of these yet, so you might want to go back and redo them all as your time allows, so the old dates are shown again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily, I have done practically all of them, which took a lot of work. I will change the few remaining ones in the way you suggest, but I don't think I will have the patience to redo all the others any time soon. Sorry for the trouble, but I didn't actually realise there was a problem there. Ninguém (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso
The user Opinoso is a very complicated person to deal with. He can do whatever he wants in the articles he "owns" while no one else may touch any of them. And he is always acting like he was the victim of attacks that never happened and at the same time keeps threatening me. - --Lecen (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ninguem- keep up your fight against Opinoso, he's a real low life. People like this guy ruin Wikipedia. We have to find some way to stop him from changing every article on Brazil. Adios. -Vivalatinamerica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.200.215 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some users make small, foolish edits that do not improve the articles. Other users revert them systematically and, through this, acquire "respectability" as "good users" that "fight vandalism and disruption". The former are not in conflict with the latter; actually they constitute the "food" on which the latter prey to get stronger in Wikipedia - sometimes becoming so strong that they can actually "own" articles, because any attempt to modify "their" articles tends to be understood as an example of "vandalism" or "disruption".


 * You do me (or Wikipedia) no favour in edit warring the way you do. On the contrary, you fortify and legitimate article ownership.


 * Have a nice time. Ninguém (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right- I got way too carried away trying to stop Opinoso. Well, that's an understatement, lol- I got far too caught up in arguing with the wacko. It just really annoys me how insanely biased he is in changing so much of wikipedia. I'll stop, and I just hope you have better luck stopping assholes like him. Good luck. - Vivalatinamerica.

blocked
You should know by now that edit warring isn't allowed on en.Wikipedia because it never helps. You've fallen back into the harmful back and forth of edit warring, moreover with the same editor, so I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Block appeal
The edit wars consist in the following:

In White Brazilians:

(contrary to source)

(per source)

(refers to Darcy Ribeiro, Varguista anthropologist, but does not even refers to a source)

(per source)

(now gives Ribeiro as a source, but says the information is in volume 7 of O Povo Brasileiro - a book that has only one volume).

In São Paulo:

(undoes varies changes in a same edit, including restoring references whose titles don't match the sources' names)

(undoes blind reversal, in order to restore proper name of references)

(reintroduces references that were replaced back in December 2008, replacement that has not been objected by anyone during seven months. Summary edit talks about "unexplained changes" - the change was in December 7th, 2008, and was explained as "removing broken links".)

(reverts to newer sources with corrected names)

(reverts, calling reverted edit "vandalism").

With the edit war about sources, as the reverals are blind, comes the reinstatement of the "information" that there are 6 million Italians (not Italian Brazilians, but Italians period) in São Paulo...

That's the story - or those are the stories. Ninguém (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}}


 * Content has nothing to do with it. You can't edit war over a content disagreement, even if the other editor is wholly mistaken. This back and forth reverting between the two of you must stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So, if I make an edit, and another editor reverts it in direct contradiction to the cited sources, I should not reverse? What should I do? Ninguém (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File a report.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So that someone who neither cares nor knows anything on the subject can tell me that I should "kiss and make up" ? Ninguém (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that. That's English language idiom. If you can't get along with each other, stay away from each other. What I'm saying is, you can't edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Every time I have filed a report, I have been told it's a content issue. The only times I could get someone to actually look at the dispute were when you noticed that good faith edits were being called "vandalism", and when Hoary looked at a reversal that was totally contrary to the source. But then I got enslaved to German Brazilian, while the other poster, refusing to cooperate with Hoary, was free to make whatever edit he found interesting.

If I must promise that I won't edit war, I need to be reassured that the complaints I eventually make will be taken in serious. Ninguém (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I know it is an English language idiom. It means that I should drop the issue and get along as if nothing had happened. Which, evidently, isn't as ridiculous as suggesting an actual kiss, but comes close. Ninguém (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I won't. Instead, I'm going to file a complaint against this guy. Am I going to be told to kiss and make up? Or that it is a content issue, and that no one can do anything, because no one understand the content? Or that it "takes two to tango"? Or that there are "personal attacks on both sides"? Or am I going to have to limit myself to edit one article (and then be treated as a second rate employee if I mismanage a reference) while this guy does what he wants everywhere, in spite of being told to edit his sandbox? Ninguém (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First, the edit warring stops. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's easy to see: He reversed my edits, I reversed his. He reversed me back again, I reversed him a second time. He reversed a third time. Instead of doing the same, I complained to you in your talk page. What does that say about the edit war continuing or stopping? Ninguém (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If, after your block is up, you edit war again, you'll be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. This means the first absurd this guy does, such as placing text in direct contradiction to the given source, I am reporting him. I hope I don't get stupid "kiss and make up" responses again, as I hope I don't get idiotly blocked by someone who can't read. Let's see. Ninguém (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, no. I am going to report his attempts to keep misinformation in White Brazilian with the "less than 700,000" thing. Ninguém (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet you carry on commenting about the other editor. Please stop now. Comment only on content and sources. If you comment about the other editor again (outside an RfC or RfAR), I will very likely block you again. You will not get what you want by trying to get an admin to sanction another editor with whom you have but a disagreement about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) That isn't a "comment" on another editor. It is a complaint. And it is not about content, it is about renewed personal attacks. So, the place for that, if you aren't going to take any measures to stop those personal attacks, isn't RfC or RfAR, but ANI. Ninguém (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way, as of now I am banning you from posting about Opinoso outside of an RfC or RfAR. If you breach this ban, I'll block you for two weeks. Either stay away from Opinoso, or blend your PoV with his, or file an RfC or RfAR. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you forbidding me from filing an ANI complaint? Ninguém (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And can you do that? Ninguém (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:NPA is straightforward. Comment only on content, not on other editors, I've told you about this so many times. Enough is enough, I will block you for two weeks if you post about Opinoso outside of an RfC or RfAR. I'll be giving the same warning to Opinoso if it's called for after his block is up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. So let's talk about content. In White Brazilian, this edit introduced Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro as a source for this information:

"According to Darcy Ribeiro before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled in Brazil ."

Unhappily, I know of no edition of O Povo Brasileiro in 7 or more volumes. Here is the best visualisation I could find of it online:



I have searched it many times. I haven't found the information purported in the article there. Is it possible to ask for a page, a chapter, a quote, that points to that information? Ninguém (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk about it with Opinoso or any other editor who edits the article, but don't comment on Opinoso again, even on this talk page, outside of an RfC or RfAR, or I'll block you for two weeks. If Opinoso carries on commenting about you, or will not talk with you about sources, I'll likewise block Opinoso for two weeks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done: Ninguém (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And more here:.

Is there a deadline for this discussion to happen? Ninguém (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no deadlines for discussions on en.Wikipedia. However, if the other editor comments on you, I'll warn him not to do so outside of an RfC or RfAR. If the editor doesn't want to talk about sources and content, I may warn him that undoing your edits without comment is a kind of edit warring and disruptive. If he calls your good faith edits vandalism again, I'll block him. Mind, I'm very neutral on the content disagreement between you two. You may want to find a way to blend your sources with his, with the text noting that there may be a disagreement. However, you must be very careful not to stray into original research and keep in mind that ethnicity mixed with nationalism is almost always a highly, highly controversial, weakly sourced topic which most editors want nothing to do with. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, Gwen. How am I going to "blend" my sources with his, when I can't discuss them? And why am I the only one that cannot make original research, while others can not only do original research (for instance, the article on White Brazilians if full of original research, including a whole section about "colonial Whites", a concept that cannot be found anywhere in the litterature), but quote sources as saying something that they do not actually say?

This is not an "encyclopaedia", this is a farce. Ninguém (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think it's a joke and a farce, then don't edit here. If en.Wikipedia is indeed a joke and a farce, smart readers won't give Wikipedia article much heed anyway, so there is no pith to your editing here to begin with and nothing is lost. Whatever the truth of this may be, you're trying to edit in one of the more difficult, nettlesome and weakly sourced, broad topic areas on en.Wikipedia (and in the world) and forgive me for saying so, but English is not a first language for you or the other editor and moreover, some of the sources are in Portuguese, which makes this even harder for everyone. If you want to gather more input on this from other editors, please do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the most difficult topics. My edits, which I try to make as earnest and sound as possible, never stand. The other editor's edits, which constantly misinterpret the sources, always stand. Perhaps the toppic is only difficult for me, but easy for him?

No, English is not my first language, albeit a have a passable command of it. The problem is not my English, or Opinoso's. The problem is your Portuguese.

There are no other imputs from other editors, nor are they going to be. I have explained this at lenght, and won't explain again. I am merely going to point to the most recent example of why nobody wants to edit those owned articles: the very effective exlusion of User:Lecen from editing them.

You have seen what happened with White Brazilian: three weeks of protection, so that there could be discussion. Where was the discussion? I pointed a series of changes that would be necessary; those were not contested by anyone. When the article was unprotected, I tried to make some of them; some of them were immediately reversed.

What I am asking is pretty reasonable. A huge 500 page book is given as a source for some information. Not even an online version, but a paper version. I am asking for a page or a chapter, so that people can more easily see this information in the source. I am being evidently stonewalled. I am asking you, who are an admin here, to put some pressure so that this source becomes a little bit more precise.

As of now, I have researched the online versions of the book that I could find for that information, and I have not found it there. What should I do? Can I remove the information? Can I replace the offline source with an online one? What else?

I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia. This would be a loss for Wikipedia, not for me. If I quit, you will have to deal with the fact that the only person editing those articles will be Opinoso. The quality of those articles, in this case, will be the quality of Opinoso's contributions. Are you earnestly comfortable with that? If you are, I am going to quit. If you aren't, either give me some reason to continue, or find other editors that can contribute there. Preferably editors that know something about Brazil and about demography. Ninguém (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral as to the content in these articles. I don't care if you, the other editor or someone else is the only one editing the articles. I'm handling this only as an admin watching behaviour as it has to do with policy. As for Portugeuse sources, see Sources. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, this is the English Wikipedia and language does have bearing on its content, systemic bias and all. Nobody said editing here was easy and I don't know any active editor here who gets what they want, content-wise, all the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I know one. But you have asked me to not comment on him.

In any case, good bye. I won't waste my time any more. You can keep your "encyclopaedia" with all its factual errors and abusive editors. Bom proveito! Ninguém (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
Ninguém, you have to chose between my version or Opinoso's version of the history section in the article Brazil. Until the other editors (beyond me and him) pick a side, that guy will keep causing disruption on Wikipedia. - --Lecen (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, take a look at 10 points discussion. Comment on each point, please. --Lecen (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with Opinoso
Ninguém, I am having trouble with Opinoso again. He has baseless reverted sourced information at the sime time he called it "personal theories". See here. He also said that the renowned [|Enciclopedia Barsa] is not a reliable source. See here. he also again attacked me about the history section while it was discussed and settled by other editors. See here.

He simply reverts anything without even bothering to open a discussion thread or to wait other Editors opinions about it. I can not revert it back because it will become a revert war. How can I handle someone who has no respect for rules? - --Lecen (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no... oh no... oh no... And look who has appeared out of nowhere immediately after I've complained about Opinoso's behavior? That User:Grenzer22 guy! See here. I can't believe he is not a suckpuppet. Is there anyway to check both user's IPs? -


 * That is not the only problem. There is an user called Auréola who made recent edits in the article. I did not agree with some of them and I created a topic in the discussion page to learn about the other editor's opinions about it. I did not change, erase or touched in anyway in what he wrote. Nothing. I just asked for other editor's opinions about it. I was amazed to see that he also used Darcy Ribeiro as source. What happened? This Auréola appeared in the discussion thread and take a look on what he wrote. In here, here and here.


 * Just take a look at the links. See it by yourself. Tell me, Ninguém, who does you know in Wikipedia that always use Darcy Ribeiro as source, enjoy using the words "very weird" to bring suspicious about other editors motives, complain that only Brazilians should write in the article about Brazil and accuses other editors of having ideological motives behind their edits? Yes, him. Opinoso. Coincidence, perhaps. But coming from him... - --Lecen (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not Opinoso. It is the third time I say it. I am someone who is concerned by what "free" wikipedia has exemplified to me. The vile distortion of Brazilian themes, a negative portrayal of Brazil in every single respect. Just like you, and Ninguém, I am worried this is the way our country is talked about, with lies, and negative theories. This is it. Believe me.

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC).


 * It took me some time to understand what was Opinoso's strategy. Not I've got it. I thought he had reappeared only because of his fixation in any thing related to ethnicity. What he wants is to regain his old article by disrupting it. He managed to make it blocked. Now he keeps himself on endless discussions where he will never admit that he is wrong. What we have to do is to as I did on the discussion about the history section: get other editor's opinions to get into a consensus. There is already mine and your vote. He has his sockpuppet(s). What I think is the best is to get him banned from here. He is a troublemaker. He has done too much, it must be enough to get him expelled. - --Lecen (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Por que você não me mostrou essa minha de ouro antes?!!!!! Caramba! Agora tenho como jogar esse cara para fora daqui! - --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you were right. I showed all of that to two administrators and do you know what they told me? "Can't do nothing about it" No matter how many times I say and show them that even when there are up to 6 editors against only Opinoso, they keep seeing only as a simple "content issue". Opinoso is a trouble-maker, he shouldnt and does not deserve to be in here. But for some reason that I do not know why, he get away no matter how many people complain or how many wrong things he does. - --Lecen (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you are referring to Gwen Gale and myself. I do not see this as a simple content issue and I don't think that she does either. Please read what she and I have written carefully, and then reply carefully. Then we will respond carefully and, where justified, firmly. But don't let the signal-to-noise ratio decline. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, I got four Geography books and all of them support our view. In absolutely everything: from Caboclos as majority in the Northeast, to Caboclo as a sub-category of Pardo, etc, etc... It will take some time to take into the computer and than translate it. Wowever, I could scan and send to you, if you want to. - --Lecen (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey man. I don't believe that you are making the best approach to deal with the matter. If we get into the "DNA" andl all that, the discussion will drag itseld indefinitely. I put SEVEN different books written here, in Brazil, about the matter, explaining what is Pardo. We must stick to what the experts classification, not trying to convince the other editors in here with mathematic numbers of gene pool. As José William Vesentini noticed, "these [official] data are very questionable, as they do not take in account the ethnic origin of the people (black or Indian ancestry, etc.), but only the color of skin. Moreover, the notion of 'Pardo' is not very rigorous, as it includes from very dark Mulattoes to Caboclos and Cafuzos." What we need is to get what Opinoso said and show to everyone that it does not make sense. He said that: 1) Caboclos are not the majority of the population; 2)Caboclo is a name that is not even used or recognized in the specialized fields and 3) Blacks are 85% of the population. I have seven different books that span through decades that reveal how the matter is seen in Brazil, he has a newspaper article. --Lecen (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple: you and I know very well how "flexible" it is his interpretation of sources. He is probably the only person I ever met that when he reads that the wall is blue he writes in Wikipedia that it is red. --Lecen (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking at some articles he contributes. Err... "contributes", I mean. For example, in Latin America, there are 0% Caboclos. That is right, 0%. The Brazilian people article is nothing more than a intimate look inside Opinoso's mind. Until recently I liked to write in history articles, but now I want to take a better look on other things. My plan is to perfect the article about Brazil, get it nominated for featured article and then move on to Brazilian people. I know very well that I end up bumping on him, but it will be necessary. Perhaps we should create somekind of "Anti-Opinoso Task Force". Its objective will not be to harass him, but only to create a strong barricade against his abuses. He made so many enemies around here that it will not be hard to get quite a few members. Another thing, we have to rely less on Administrators. Because in the end it will be similar to what happened to you (and many others before) and now to me: they will consider nothing more than a childsh fight between two editors. One complaining about Opinoso's abusive behavior is one thing, many, it will be another. - --Lecen (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator and I do not consider this a childish fight among editors, although it certainly has its childish aspects. Having Brazil made a featured article is, unfortunately, impossible in the short or medium term: even if all the editors miraculously agreed on the issues (and there's little chance of that), the FA people would say "300+ notes? Way too many!" And of course if you reduced their number there'd be complaints of a shortage of sourcing. The article has to depend more on other articles. Meanwhile, your notion of an "Anti-Opinoso Task Force" (even if immediately qualified by a declaration that the intent is not to harass) is perhaps the surest way to increase sympathy for him. Please think very hard before you write stuff like this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hard to imagine someone like him getting sympathy from someone. However, my suggestion was not to simply hunt him down, or track every move he makes. The idea is simple: anytime he lies (as he always does), or fabricate information (as he usually does), present a twisted view of a source (as he always does), attack and insult someone (always, always does), we would have a way better way of complaining with Administrators about his behavior. It would be similar to a Neighborhood Watch or something similar, not to harass an editor. And I do think very hard before I write anything, but I do believe that after all I saw coming from him, and how he always get away from everything bad he does, the least I could do is look after a way of protecting me and others. But as you told me, we should not lose our time discussing at this point Opinoso's behavior, but the content itseld that is being disputed. --Lecen (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I warmly agree with the last sentence of that. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny to see Opinoso saying that the word "Caboclo" does not exist while at the same he contributes to the article about it. I do agree with you that while we are always told to be very careful in everything we do, from talking with each other to how we write in the articles, no such warnings arrive to Opinoso. Ever. --Lecen (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinoso will not be sanctioned. Just give up on that. You should have learned that by now. He is quite free to do whatever he wants. You must focus on the debate over the content. Opinoso has many, many flaws in the way he give his opinions. It is not hard to find holes in it and demolish it. Try to be simple and direct. People don't read long messages, just the short and easy to understand ones. Don't lose your time bringing more sources, quotes or something like that. People had enough. Just read what he wrote and demolish sentence by sentence. He wants to make of Brazil a giant Africa. It's not hard to prove how absurd that is. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please join the report here if you believe you have more evidence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Opinoso_reported_by_User:Likeminas_.28Result:_.29

Likeminas (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't that ironic? I said Gwen Gale that it would be a matter of time until another editor complain about Opinoso. That was what? 3-4 days ago? The guy is a freaking menace and he walks around freely like a model citizen. He should had been blocked 2 years ago. --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked several times before. And yes, I agree Opinosos' behavior is at the very least troublesome. I assume next time, administrators won't be so lenient. Likeminas (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Torture of Germans
I do know that Getúlio Vargas created several Concentration Camps in Brazil to keep German, Italian and Japanese immigrants. And I also know that he tried to prevent German descendants of speaking German and keeping their culture. How that was done, I confess that I don't know. Let me search about it in my books and I'll tell you. --Lecen (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you saw what i wrote in my talk page bout this matter. For what I understood, OP. said that Germans could be tortured if they speak German. Well, as usual, that's an absurd. It isn't even sourced. Why not simply remove? --Lecen (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read what is written about Leabanese and Italians in Brazil in the demographics section of the article Brazil? There are more Lebanese here then in Lebanon. Awful! --Lecen (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree. I am moving myself towards the Brazilian people article first. I believe we should work in it before all the others. It's full of Darcy Ribeiro crap and other absurd Opin. remarks. --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet in the area.
Check it out: --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

EL formating
Ninguém, as I am totally ignorant of Portuguese I am not able to comment knowledgably on this recent set of edits by you, but the signs I see are very good indeed. Please keep up the good work. However, if you can please format external links like this "title of page", it would be welcome; the reader will see not "http://www.blahblahblah.br/etc/etc/blahblah.html" but instead the more palatable "title of page". Of course you can vary this where common sense dictates.

(Every week, I feel depressed anew by the width and depth of my ignorance of languages. Most recently, Talk:Nikos Economopoulos.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Os Brancos
Hi, you seem to be mass editing the article, has there been any discussion about this? Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lookin just at the lede of the article, IMO, the version before you started mass editing it is preferable and closer related to the MOS. I am tempted to revert to that version but I will discuss it with you first. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"I am tempted": I guess that he succumbed to the temptation.

Stay cool, even though this request is hardly justifiable in the circumstances. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With my experience with Opinoso in Brazil article, what I can tell you for sure is that he will drive you to endless discussions until you get tired of it or the talk page becomes impossible to read which will certainly drive away other editors. Yes, it's an awful tactic: it's make hard, if not impossible to reach a consensus. What am I talking? Opinoso doesnt care about consensus. You will never, ever, see him trying to reach a consensus. Everyone is wrong, he is right or until he gets blocked by an Administrator. What makes me surprise is the fact that editor Off2riorob never appeared in the article before. Now he is all interested in White Brazilians? And also, remember that you will not get other editors' opinions on the subject. Simply because there aren't any. All the ones that existed departed due to Opinoso's behavior. --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, remember that Portuguese families indeed came to Brazil during the colonial era. The idea that only men came or that most were exiled is erroneous. I can give you a page and the quote from Charles R. Boxer's work where it tells that families, including women and children came to Brazil. Ow, and before I forget: if you noticed well, Off2riorob talks, talks and talks, but all he trully mean is: "I don't like your edits." He doesn't write "What you wrote is wrong because another author said X about it" or something similar. And he simply reverted everything you did, which is wonderful, isn't (and yes, I am being ironic)? --Lecen (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, who is he? --Lecen (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is why I am against using internet sources and opt to use books. By when I remember how Opinoso fabricated information not found in his books... --Lecen (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a brake in the article for now, if possible. You are getting into an endless discussion with Off2Rio that will make the discussion page impossible to be followed. This is the tactic Opinoso used and that drove away other editors from participating in the discussion. Off2Rio has not brought sources to oppose your changes. What he did was nothing more than the fact that he did not like your changes. Let an administrator settle the matter. --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've brought up the matter here at "WP:AN/I". -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian
Hello Ninguém,

As a very Brazilian person, I have taken a look at the "ethnic" sections related to Brazil, and they are generally very wrong. They project a racialism that does not exist in Brazil (a foreign and biased racialism). Not that there is no racism in Brazil. The presentation of both the "white" and the "black" sections is totally unfair. The "white" section concentrates on proving how "non white" "white" Brazilians are (from the point of view of "real whiteness"; lol totally absurd!), and the "black" section on how "black" the Brazilians are. In the "white" section a 5% non Euro ancestry Brazilian person is labelled as "non white", whereas in the "black" section anyone with a greater than say 5% 10% African ancestry is "black". There is an aggressive mood also, making it look like as if the relative notions of "race" would be "very wrong" in Brazil, when that's very far from the truth: race is relative, it is a social construct, and this is what leading experts on the field say, not me. The "white section" could include photos of "white Brazilians" too, with their DNA tests, just like the "black section": Tiazinha, the "brown" singer from the interior of Paraíba (99,9% European, who does not know any of her European ancestors, by the way; all of them "colonial white"), José Sarney, from the interior of Maranhão (99,9% European; all of them "colonial white") and Ivete Sangalo, Brazilian singer from the interior of Bahia who is 99,2% European and only 0,4% SSA and only 0,4% Native American, along with Zeca Camargo, another "brown" Brazilian, who is about 96% European (colonial times ancestry here as well), among many others like them, Paulo Coelho, for example, totally European, colonial ancestry from Ceará and Pará. They did not know of their ancestry and they do not care about it either, Paulo Coelho said: "how boring to be totally European! I wanted to be Moorish, Jewish, "black" and native American!" :) Ivete Sangalo complained that she did not have as much African as she wished she had, and Zeca Camargo celebrated his 2% Native American heritage!!

Cheers Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk)

Control Brazilian subjects
Ninguém,

You have must seen it. There is control, some people out there control Brazilian topics. Brazilians are not allowed to express themselves at English wikipedia. All of what has happened so far to Brazilians here at English wikipedia is only but a tiny example of how we are presented abroad, in many other circles, not only wikipedia. There are many prejudices out there against the Brazilians, and some people think they are entitled to tell us (and to tell also to the rest of the world) who we are and what is our past. Unfortunately as a whole Latin America is too weak to defend herself, we are the target of all sorts of prejudiced people from elsewhere. The "white Brazilian" topic in particular is full of mistakes, some clearly intentionally done. Just to let you know that you and Lecen are not alone out there. There are other Brazilians who have also felt the disrespect and bias that has been shown against us several times throughout several Brazilian topics at the English wikipedia.

saudações

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Ok
Okay, I will moderate myself. But still I find it difficult to accept that Opinoso is an ethnic Brazilian, that his ancestors have lived here. He may have been born at Brazil, but he probably identifies with something else. That's my impression, definitely. Besides it is not only about him. But I will restrain myself, for sure.

Cheers

Grenzer22 (talk)Grenzer22Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

What is going on?
Am I the only one who still has no clue of what the hell is the problem in the White Brazilian article? I don't even know why we are arguing there! It's always the same Opinoso's tactic: keep the discussion going and going until it becomes impossible to be followed by anyone else and insinuate bad faith from other editors. Before at least he tried to bring (fake) sources, but this time, not even that. He just doesn't like anyone touching his article. --Lecen (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, I think you should remove your last message in the talk page. You are losing the focus and bringing more ammo to Opinoso and anyone who is tired of any discussion that he is part of. If OfftoRio created that section, let him talk first. he is again trying to evade from taking a position, although he created all this mess. Focus on him and what he says. Forget about Opinoso. Ask to Off2Rio for sources that goes against your edits. If there aren't any, then what he did should be reverted and the article must be unblocked. --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You should erase again what you wrote. Havwn't you noticed what it's going on, yet? It was Off2Rio that caused all this mess and it's him who has to give explanations, not you. Everytime you write and write explaining yourself gives the impression that you are wrong and his is indeed right. If he does not bring reasons and sources for what he did, all of it will have be considered vandalism. Everytime we ask him what it's wrong and what sources he has all he does is to evade the matter. It is him who should be put against the wall, not you. Erase your message, let the section small and we will use it as a proof that he is just making everyone a fool. --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would prefer it if comments that were posted were left posted, if users feel that the comment was posted b in error I would say it is preferable if the comments were struck rather than removed, it is easier to see what actually happened, posting a comment and them removing it is wrong, please take a little more time to consider before comments are posted and then the comments will not require removal as an after thought, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ele está apenas enrolando e você está caindo no jogo dele. Está mais do claro que o sujeito é um vândalo que não está preocupado com algo no artigo, mas sim em frescar com a nossa cara. Se ele tivesse algum interesse honesto, teria dito o que estava errado nas suas edições. Reclamar que se tratam apenas de "edições em massa" não faz sentido algum. E por mais que nós perguntemos o que está errado ele simplesmente muda de assunto ou fica falando bobagens. Desde o começo eu avisei ao Hoary que era tudo uma grande sacanagem e que ele deveria era ter desbloqueado o artigo e proíbido o sujeito de reverter a não ser que ele tivesse boas razões. Nada foi feito e cá estamos, em mais uma longa e estúpida discussão. Logo ficaremos conhecidos como a dupla encrenqueira, que se mete em discussões o tempo todo que acabam resultando em artigos bloqueados e intervenções de administradores. Da próxima vez, não cometa o mesmo erro: simplesmente exija que o administrador interfira e que proíba as modificações do outro editor a não ser que ele tenha um bom motivo. --Lecen (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to good faith editors as vandals, assume good faith, I also suggest that for clarity although I can read them, that you should comment in English. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I wanted your opinion I would have written in the talk page of that article. If I am writing in here, it's because I am talking with Ninguém and only with him. --Lecen (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take care to assume good faith as regards other users wherever you are and whatever language you do it in, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Chega a ser hilário as bobagens que ele escreve. Veja o que ele falou agora no artigo: é necessário que todas as pesquisas sejam incluídas, assim como versões. Que pesquisas? Que versões? Ele não colocou nada! E sugerir que você fique brincando de castelo de areia com o texto do artigo no seu espaço privado é ridículo. O que ele quer é que o artigo não seja modificado. Você tem alguma dúvida ainda de que ele está ligado ao nosso velho amigo? --Lecen (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * O Hoary criou uma nova seção na talk page. Eu não irei me envolver mais. Caso você o faça, seria preferível que antes de perder o seu tempo reescrevendo completamente o texto que pergunte algo muito simples: "afinal, como posso saber o que reescrever se Off2Rio não explicitou o que há de errado e por que está errado e de acordo com quais autores está errado?" P.S.: Você já percebeu que o Off2rio está implicitamente intimidando o Hoary? Está tentando colocar o Hoary numa saia justa e assim impedí-lo de se envolver de qualquer maneira no artigo. Resultado final: o artigo continuará intocado. O que me surpreende é que esse sujeito nunca apareceu antes no artigo. Por que tamanho empenho, então? --Lecen (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for gatecrashing, but Off2riorob has asked on my page too that if people discuss his edits they should do so in English. I think he has a point.

May I add that I'm starting to enjoy "reading" in Portuguese, especially when it appears to be about me. You're welcome to say just about anything you wish in Portuguese about my edits; and, time and energy permitting, I'll have fun attempting to guess what it means. (Above, is Rob intimidating me? Am I intimidating him? Is he intimate with me? Etc.) Please don't spoil the fun by explaining.

Amazing discovery of the day: pt:Brasileiros brancos (mostly by this fellow) has no discussion. Nothing at all. Redlinked. How was that possible? -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer is quite simple: check the history log. It has so far only 10 edits. The first one (and also the one that created the article) was made in October 14, 2009. That is, less than 2 months ago. The text of the article is nothing more than a translation of the English article to Portuguese. Now you know why is redlinked. --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you are not going to believe it once you come back. Three editors (including me) requested to return to your last edit so that then we could start improving the article. Seeing that he was clearly going to "lose" Off2Riobob did what he could: requested the article to be erased. "If I can't have the article in the way I want, no one shall have it then." Wonderful, isn't?--Lecen (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ninguém, I won't be able o help you on witing the text from those articles as I am focusing all my energies on Pedro II of Brazil. However, I could scan the pages from books I have about the subject and send to you through e-mail. If you find something useful, you could use it as source. So, what do you think? --Lecen (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Off2Riorob has made his suggestion for the lead. Accordng to his suggestion, Japanese are white. Yes, white. And also, 15% of the so called whites would be considered blacks in US demographics censuses. I thought that in US race was based on self-report. Unless our friend is using as source that racist "one drop rule" theory. Anyway, is more than clear that he doesn't know absolutely nothing about the subject. You're going to have a lot of trouble, be ready. Because there is nothing harder than trying to discuss something with someone who is a complete ignorant on the subject. These kind of people are the ones who are most stubborn to keep their views. --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my friend, but I won't get involved on that article anymore. It reminds me a lot of that first discussion with Opinoso, where I was making a serious work and he was fabricating information to prove his point. It's useless to spend time in a debate with someone who clearly doesn't understand nothing about the subject. That Off2Riorob is a waste of time. That's what he is. You should let that article to rot alone and that's it. Make it clear too all those administrators that they didn't handle the issue in the correct way. I knew since the beginning that the discussion didn't make any sense. --Lecen (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Having done so much work, why give up now? I have not forgotten the materials you added to my talk page. The main reason I've done little on that article for the last day or so is this injustice. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Ninguém. I have no idea what frustrations you are going through, but my advice is to just look at this as a hobby, keep yourself cool... and avoid "tough cops" if you can :) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just ignore Opinoso. Let him talk alone. Ask the same to Grenzer. Do not feed him. --Lecen (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He will try to use the same old tactic: talk, talk and talk and carry the discussion to a dead end. hat I think it's strange is the fact that if you take a look at his contributions he made edits only in the article White Brazilian. To someone like him, who was everywhere everytime it seems odd. Perhaps he created a new account to start afresh? --Lecen (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
I need your help on article Brazil. There is an editor who is clearly behaving as he owns the article. I tried to make several changes into the article to keep it smaller and in accordance with WikiProject Countries rules and I also took as model other featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru. I even warned everyone of what I was going to do 24h before and when I began editing I kept reporting everything I did on the talk page. However, editor Rahlgd simply reverted everything. If yout ake a look at the history log of the article only he can make edits. --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Careful not to feed the troll. That's what it wants you to do. That's why everybody has ignored it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not answering you before. Isn't wonderful to see unknown IPs making weird edits in the article? Our little friend is still around. We have to keep an eye open. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazil
Hi! If you want to help me keep the editions of sub-section "Culture" in the article Brazil (as they were like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=324617070), I thank you. Auréola (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, Ninguém. So help me decrease the size of the text, without sacrificing its quality? Thank you. Auréola (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not going to lose my time in there. Waist of time. The greatest proff that off2riorob does not want any change in the text is that he did not participate in the discussion in the other article as Hoary proposed. He knows that by leaving you and Hoary discussing with a wall the article will be kept unchanged and that's it. Leave it like that, the administrators should have requested to him to bring sources to opose your edits since the beginning. None of them did that. The guy appeared and said "I didn't like it. Revert it" and it's a good argument. Just wonderful. --Lecen (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian
Isn't amazing? As soon as the article was unprotected Off2riorob complained of edits in it and so it became protected again. Now he simply vanished and the discussion went dead once again. And so the article stays forever unchanged. Will it take much longer to an administrator notice that this guy is only messing around? --Lecen (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Immigration to brazil
You are crazy or stupid?!  ... added at 18:24, 28 January 2010 by Hentzer 


 * This remark is a little incoherent. Was it intended as a question or an exclamation, or hadn't you decided which of the two? Perhaps you would like to elucidate. If so, do of course bear in mind the constraints of civility. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

and now Chile
I never realized that I could read Spanish. But I do like to think that I also never acquired an "ability" to read Spanish in perversely inverted form. Ugh! -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinoso behaves arbitrarily. Trying to own Brazilian topics
Just to let you know that Opinoso has once again started deleting messages posted by others (me in this case), without justification. I posted genetic studies different from the ones he posted, along other with other information, all of them correct. He has opened a thread against me now. Grenzer22 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

EDP Political Position
--Silvatici4 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Dear Ninguem, I see you have changed the Political Position of the English Democratic Party to 'Far-Right' and have cited this source: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:C0khcR_wjBYJ:scholar.google.com/+%22english+democrats%22+%22right+wing%22&hl=pt-BR&as_sdt=2000

The source it too long to discuss in detail but this is the definition of 'Far Right' in the citation:

'Our model posits that extreme right ideology relies on twofundamental dimensions – a negative conception of identity, which may express itself culturally(xenophobia) or civically (populism), and authoritarianism, which may be conceived socially(reactionary), or politically (repressive). These two dimensions create four possible quadrants ofextreme right ideology: xenophobic-reactionary, xenophobic-repressive, populist-reactionary, andpopulist-repressive.'

The definition of 'Far Right' used by Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison on the thesis does not agree with the Wikipedia definition of 'Far Right':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right

I am curious as to how the EDP can be described as 'Far Right' when they are part of the 'Alliance for Democracy'. May I suggest you take a look at which other parties who are in this alliance?

Do you think the citation is a good source?

To be a good source don't you think that you should use a source which is judging the EDP with the most recent manifesto?

Kind Regards

Silvatici4

--Silvatici4 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Dear Ninguem,

Good idea to have a few people express their opinions about this. I look forward to the outcome.

BTW, I am rather inexperienced at how to communicate correctly on Wikipedia so I hope I am doing the correct thing by adding to this note in this way. Please correct me if I am doing this wrong.

Kind Regards

Silvatici4

Current work
I believe that you are doing a great job by editing the articles that Opinoso messed up. Everything has dubious sources and a certain ‘agenda’. Wikipedia has to be based on facts and be neutral. It is very hard to find one Brazilian editor that agrees with his writing, on the opposite side, I can name over a dozen that dislike his style. If you need any help cleaning this mess let me know. I showed a great concern regarding his sources in the past; as a result I was blocked by one of his protectors, normally clueless people. I almost lost any hope in this encyclopedia at the time, but we should not let this individual spread misinformation. If you need any help with your work, please let me know. Best regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, European immigration to Brazil
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, European immigration to Brazil. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Immigration to Brazil. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Immigration to Brazil - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of European immigration to Brazil
I have nominated European immigration to Brazil, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/European immigration to Brazil. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing informations and duplicating articles
STOP removing sourced informations, as you have been doing in several articles. And STOP duplicating articles too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.62.216.172 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are you? Jimbo Wales? An administrator, at least?


 * ... or merely someone who cannot even use a registered screen name?


 * If you want to give orders, first build some authority.Ninguém (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this remind you of anyone? thoriyan 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly the same person. What should I do regarding such obvious sockpuppetry? Ninguém (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Find some help from a sysop/admin. Try User:Gwen Gale or someone who is/was involved before. thoriyan 14:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your editing style
Please do me and all the other editors reviewing your work a favour and try to spend a couple minutes per page to do multiple edits at a time; it's very tedious to read through your work on so many different revisions. Thank you for your hard work. thoriyan 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind advice. Unhappily I have learnt the hard way to not do as you suggest; it is extremely frustating to make a comprehensive revision only to see it wholesale reverted and called vandalism by some stupid and abusive ignoramus. I am not sure that this problem is over, and while it isn't I believe I will tend to edit in the way I have found it minimises it. Sorry for that. Ninguém (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Ninguém - unfortunately I have to agree with you. And the number of stupid and abusive ignoramusses with revert-happy fingers is substantial! It is quite annoying to spend time picking through an article fixing x number of things and then the idiot disagrees with ONE thing and reverts the whole lot! Um abraço, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A book that might be useful to you
Take a look at this book. It might help you. See first page 65 and then 81. They are the most important chapters in it. I finally understood why there are several authors who came from the Southeast who treat "pardo" as the same as "mulatto" and reveal Brazil as a country divided between Whites and Afro-descendants. The Caboclos, who are the majority in the North and Northeast are simply ignored. This book will explain it. Regards! --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lecen; the book is indeed very interesting and useful. Ninguém (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is like God? Nobody
I am thinking and reconsidering some things. I could consider myself superior to others, but what would be the use of being superior or thinking myself superior? Thus the interest of "truth" in wikipedia seems more and more uninteresting to me - but it is very interesting to see and engage in the process, even knowing it to be finally useless. It is pleasant while it is done, and after it is done it is useless. :D Much love from the Jah Nation, heheh --Kiyarr lls- talk 13:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No
No, I won't. You spend nearly 24 hours a day in Wikipedia, you have enough time to look it by youself. Thank you. Opinoso (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in yet another book written by Darcy Ribeiro? Or some false information that is not backed by the source given by him? So many options... Makes me remember of those two times I beat the hell out of him in Brazil article. --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Spanish language
Ninguém, os cara tão meio lelé aqui, querem fazer guerra pra falar que no Brasil tem 12 milhões de falantes de língua espanhola --Luizdl (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This was archived here before any action was taken and indeed before any real discussion had started. I shan't have any qualms about restarting it at any point where doing so seems a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources
You know very well that Opinion is unfamous for doing that: citing sources that do not back his claims. Wikipedia's administrators are always eager to punish editors for the smallest infractions but one has to wonder why Opiniso is still around. --Lecen (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't leave. You have done a great job
Hi Ninguém!

Please don't leave! You have done a great job. Some articles were really in a deplorable state before you started giving your contributions. Cheers! Grenzer22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

FYI ANI

 * - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Removing_informations_and_edit-warring - Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nelson is also Portuguese
Nelson is a Portuguese name, since it is included in the list of the names allowed to be used in Portugal. (Portugal does not allow people to use foreign names)

It has an English origin, but it does mean it is not Portuguese. The most common name in Portuguese is Maria, which has a Jewish origin, it comes from Hebrew Miriam. All names in Portuguese will have a non-Portuguese origin, since Portuguese itself has origins in another foreign language, which was Latin, but it also has many words from other languages, such as Hebrew, Greek, Arab, Tupi.

Portuguese last names are often of Latin origin as well. But having a Portuguese surname does not mean you have Portuguese ancestry. So Phone Books do not tell the ancestry of a population, like you tried to claim before. It that why you claim to be of Portuguese descent? You have a Portuguese last name, like Silva or Pereira and you imagined it brings an actual Portuguese ancestry? You need to study more, Ninguém! Gaúchos are a mixed population, very similar to the Amazonian population. If you want to know your real ancestry, look to an Indian tribe, not to Portuguese folk dancers. Be proud of it. Opinoso (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And you are a hopeless case...


 * Names coming from Latin aren't borrowings into Portuguese, Opinoso. English names are.


 * You don't understand your source. It is a Portuguese bureaucratic office, which decides what names are acceptable for Portuguese children; it is not an authority on ethymology.


 * Your comments about my ancestry are unwelcome; you are not my friend and were not invited to discuss it. Ninguém (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Names coming from Latin aren't borrowings into Portuguese, Opinoso. English names are."

Who said that? You? Opinoso (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I say that. Who says the opposite? Ninguém (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese Brazilian
Dear Sir or Madam, regarding your query, "Is this a joke? If they [the Jews] were expelled from Portugal by the Inquisition (in 1496), how would they come from... Portugal... to Brazil... after 1500?", I would like to respond by pointing out a few facts. First, the "expulsion" of the Jews from Portugal in 1496-97 was not as complete as one might be led to believe. To the contrary, many remained in the country, often staying as ostensible converts or New Christians. Some even continued to practice their religion as crypto-Jews. However, since the Inquisition, which lasted until 1821 in Portugal, continued its persecutory activities, significant numbers of individuals of Jewish background emigrated to other parts of the Portuguese Empire, including Brazil, long after the date you referred to. Second, as a result of the Dutch conquest of parts of northeastern Brazil (1630-1654), there was also an influx of Sephardi Jews to "New Holland", especially in and around Recife. -- Dpecego (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So, what you want to say is that they were not actually expelled from Portugal. In which case, that should be said, something like, "Jews that had escaped from expulsion from Portugal, but still felt threatened by the Inquisition", or, "Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianism," etc. Definitely, not "Jews who had been expelled from Portugal".


 * The arrival of Jewish settlers under Dutch domination of Northeastern Brazil is a different subject, if for no other reason, because most of them were expelled when the Portuguese reconquered the region.


 * Most importantly, however, what has all this to do with the subject of the article, namely "Portuguese Brazilians"? Ninguém (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, I appreciate your input. In fact, I have already made a minor change to the text that took into consideration your comments above. Specifically, the sentence regarding Sephardi Jews now reads, "Some were New Christians or crypto-Jews that had fled from Portugal in order to escape the Inquisition."

Now then, in response to your most recent query, it is rather obvious that we have different interpretations of "Portuguese Brazilian". Your own vision of the term would be perfectly valid if the article were written in Portuguese, in which case it would refer more narrowly to 1st or (perhaps) 2nd generation Brazilians with Portuguese roots post-1822. Nevertheless, the article is in English, and as a Canadian I assure you that its meaning is much broader, i.e. any person of Portuguese ancestry who settled in Brazil, including during the colonial era. When I pointed out the text on English American, by the way, my intention was not to imply it was an impeccable work of scholarship, but rather to simply call your attention to the Anglophone connotation of expressions such as English American or French Canadian, which invariably take into consideration early settlement/colonization.

To conclude, then, I humbly suggest that you direct your genuine interest in the subject matter by helping improve the article. Of course, criticism is always welcome and, indeed, can be intellectually stimulating. That being said, deletion of entire sections that reflect the collaborative work of other contributors is something that ought to be avoided, in my opinion. Personally, for better or for worse, with the limited time I have at my disposal, I prefer to attempt fixing what I consider flawed as opposed to throwing out the baby with the bath water. -- Dpecego (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are suggesting that we should try to understand a foreign society by using the same categories that we apply to our own society, instead of trying to understand the categories that such society uses to understand itself? I don't think this is a good strategy - and, besides, the article English American does little to enlighten me on the connotations of expressions of that kind in English - mainly because it uses two very different definitions interchangeably ("American citizens of full or partial English descent" and "Americans who report English ancestry"). Which of them should we use regarding "Portuguese Brazilians"?


 * On the other topic, I have no problems with deleting the collaborative work of other contributors (which, by the way, is not the case of what has been removed from that article), if I feel pretty sure that it should not be there, because it doesn't reflect reality. Ninguém (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If I google for "Portuguese Brazilian" -wiki, for instance, I obtain this, which seems to not link to this subject at all. So I fear this isn't a widely used expression in English. Ninguém (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, if I am suggesting anything it is that articles written in English reflect their general meaning in English, merely that. Let me make an analogy. As someone brought up in Anglo-America, I could compose a text called Blacks or Black People in Brazil without raising any eyebrows here, whereas if I wrote a Portuguese-language text on the same topic using the word "preto" that would have other implications. However, does the fact that lusophones take offense to such terms mean that I, an Anglophone writing for an English-speaking audience (presumably), need to change my word choice? Must I take into consideration how Portuguese-speaking Afro-Brazilians could react to my article in English? I think not.

In so far as deleting work that "should not be there" or "doesn't reflect reality" is concerned, I totally agree with you. Yet I feel that this is not applicable to the section of the article in question. Yes, it needs to be improved/expanded/sourced, yet it ought to exist....as other similar articles do (e.g. English American, French Canadian, etc.)

Regarding what you found on google for "Portuguese Brazilian", it is similar to what one finds on the same search engine when one enters the key words "Spanish Colombian", for instance. Notwithstanding that, are we to automatically conclude, just because google does not instantly produce sites on Colombians of Spanish background, that those two words---when combined---do not mean precisely that? -- Dpecego (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Black people" translates into Portuguese as "negros", not as "pretos", though this later term is also used - in different contexts, and with different connotations, which also vary with context. But the problem is not here. Americans, or so I am told, cannot understand themselves except under ethnic or pseudo-ethnic categories such as "Black", "White", "Latino", "Irish American", etc, that they call "identities". So categories like that are, or would be, of extreme importance to Americans. Brazilians by no means reason like that. When you ask a Brazilians what they are, they will have a dozen more important things to say before they come to something like "negro" or "ítalo-brasileiro": their profession, their state of origin, their religion, their political position, even the soccer team they support, are usually far more important to them. In this precise case, "Portuguese Brazilian", the situation is a lot more complicated. Most Brazilians will simply deny being "luso-brasileiros", even if they are of Portuguese descent. So, is Wikipedia simply correcting those people, and telling them they actually are "Portuguese Brazilians", even though they don't consider themselves such? How is something an "identity" if people do not identify with it, or through it?


 * Concerning google, I don't think we should conclude that something doesn't exist because it does not show up in google. But it is a quite strong indication, yes. Concerning "Spanish Colombian", my knowledge about anything Colombian is very sketchy. As far as I know, people of colonial descent in Spanish America call themselves "criollos", not anything containing a "Spanish" first term, but perhaps Colombia is an exception (if it is, I would think a source would be necessary to support such statement, and I would expect "Spanish Colombian" or some Castillian equivalent to show up in google). Consequently, if I google for "Spanish Colombian" and find no results referring to a supposed "identity" in Colombia, my feeling will be that "Spanish Colombian" is another expression with absolutely no relation to reality, just like "Portuguese Brazilian". Thankfully, Spanish Colombian is a red link; it is a little less disinformation going on in the internet. Ninguém (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, if I understand you correctly, you are affirming that any article written in language "A" about a topic concerning country "B" (which speaks language "B") must reflect the linguistic nuances or cultural sensitivities of country "B". Based on that logic, then, if a Portuguese-language article called "Negros Canadenses" existed, then I---as an Anglophone Canadian---would be obliged to take offense to that and, consequently, either demand that it be rewritten in Portuguese as "Pretos Canadenses" (=Black Canadians) or delete it. Likewise, because "people of colonial descent in Spanish America call(ed) themselves 'criollos'", when writing in English I therefore would not be permitted to use words such as Spanish Argentine or Spanish Peruvian. Frankly, that does not seem very cogent to me. As I've already stated, I argue that articles in language "A" should reflect their general meaning in language "A", even if they deal with subject matter concerning another country/language.

Getting back to the adjective + noun combination "Portuguese Brazilian", the reality is that in English that simply means a Brazilian of Portuguese descent, just as "French Canadian" in English means a Canadian of French descent, Spanish Colombian means a Colombian of Spanish descent, and so forth. -- Dpecego (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the correct translation of "Black Canadians" is "negros canadenses", not "pretos canadenses". But the analogy is more like if you found an article about "Negros irlandeses" in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which referred to Irish people of African descent and confusing them with Black Irish. In which case, you, or any other editor would be perfectly correct in pointing out that this is not what "Black Irish" means.


 * When I take a look into French Canadian, I see it doesn't tell me that such expression means "Canadian of French descent". It says, "generally refers to French colonists who arrived in New France (Canada) in the 1600s and 1700s." All of whom, I suppose, are now dead people. But, of course, albeit the article says that, it is not what it intends to say; the intention is, I suppose, "French colonists who arrived in New France (Canada) in the 1600s and 1700s, and their descent. Which is still different from "Canadians of French descent", that would include immigrants from France in later times, and their descent (or not?). It then tells me that "French Canadians" "constitute the main French-speaking population of Canada", which seems to imply that there other fracophone Canadians that are not French Canadians (who are they?) Then it tells me that "Today, the majority of French Canadians live across North America, including the United States and Canada". So, I suppose, one can be "French Canadian" without being Canadian at all? This sounds weird, but perhaps is what happens in North America. Now, would we be justified to call Brazilian immigrants to the United States "Portuguese Brazilians" if they are of Portuguese descent? Of 17th and 18th century Portuguese descent? See, trying to apply what is common sence in one country to another countries will result in confusion, not in enlightenment.


 * Then there is this: "French Canadians constitute the second largest ethnic group in Canada, after English Canadians (meaning in large part anglophone Canadian and not Canadian of England descent) and before Scottish Canadians and Irish Canadians". So, it seems in Canada "English Canadian" does not refer (or does not "in large part" refer) to Canadian citizens of English ancestry, but to Canadians who speak English. This makes sence in Canada, which is "in large part" a bilingual country; it makes much less sence in monolingual countries such as the United States or Brazil. Speaking of multilingual countries, Wikipedia tells me that Swiss French refers to Swiss citizens who speak French, not to French citizens of Swiss descent. Should we correct this too?


 * I hope this helps to explain why I am objecting to the content you reincluded (there are many other problems, of course, starting with the abyssal quality of the sourcing - which I intend to discuss later). On the problem you point, of removing historical information, I would point to you that there are articles such as History of Brazil and Colonial Brazil, which seem better places for this information. Both are quite weak, in fact; but they can be improved, and one of the possible improvements is this kind of information. Ninguém (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think my analogies were more applicable, as the countries I've called attention to are all New World nations. Europe is a whole other can of worms, as you pointed out. Concepts concerning nationality or "ethnicity" are far more convoluted. Ireland and Switzerland are certainly good examples of that. Spain, with its Basques, Galicians and Catalans, would be another case in point. Thus, an expression such as "Catalan Spaniard" is virtually a contradiction in terms, whereas "French Canadian" or "Portuguese Brazilian" are not. -- 189.111.253.213 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Brazil is a whole other can of worms. Indeed, I think Canada and the United States are different cans of worms. Or this is what the article on French Canadians led me to think. Or English Canadian, which starts like this: An English Canadian is a Canadian whose principal language is English or who is of English ancestry; it is used primarily in contrast with French Canadian. Totally different from English American, that certainly does not mean an "American whose principal language is English", and is not used in contrast with "French American" or anything similar.


 * Now, if articles on hyphenated Canadians cannot be mere adaptations of articles on hyphenated Americans, why should articles on hyphenated Brazilians be such? Ninguém (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, first of all, thank you for calling my attention to the opening sentence of English Canadian, which supposedly is used interchangeably with "Anglophone" or "English-speaking". Now that, in my view, really is absurd! I will most definitely rectify the problem.

Now, to be honest with you, I believe we are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. The truth is that in English, at least within the context of the New World, adjective-noun combinations such as English Canadian, French Canadian, English American, Spanish Argentine, etc. all refer to citizens of nations in the Americas of "X" descent, i.e. English, French, and so forth. Even the lamentable English Canadian article you cited mentions that ("...or who is of English ancestry").

Regardless, I have a proposal to make. Why not change the main article title to "Brazilians of Portuguese Descent", as Hoary suggested, then redirect the polemic "Portuguese Brazilian" keywords to that? What do you think? Thus, anyone from an English-speaking nation who typed "Portuguese Brazilian" (as I did) would be instantly directed to "Brazilians of Portuguese Descent". -- Dpecego (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We can do that, but, first, I am re-reading the Portuguese Brazilian article, and spotting its absurds and conflations to report them in its Talk Page. And I would like you to discuss what I am posting there; can you please do that? Ninguém (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ninguém, naturally, I would be glad to do that. Where would you like me to post my comments, on your talk page or in the discussion section of the main article? In passing, I have substituted the Post painting of Dutch Recife with one by Leandro Joaquim (c. 1790) showing the splendid Carioca Aqueduct. As regards the inaccurate description of the Victor Meireles painting, I have provided a slightly less inaccurate description, I hope. -- Dpecego (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion would be better placed at the Talk Page of the article. Thanks for your efforts. Ninguém (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I think the whole paragraph should be removed - and, so, I won't "improve" it, because it would only add credibility to something I believe is fundamentally flawed. As long as it isn't removed, it should be sourced. Where are the sources? Ninguém (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)"

Dear Ninguém, I have to say that removal is not the solution. Improvement is, and that is what I've attempted to do with the paragraph concerning degredados. Check out the following source, please.. It sheds new light on the issue. For instance, I learned that there were approximately 90 different crimes for which individuals could be condemned to exile, mainly to Brazil. These included crimes against the king (e.g. "...falsificar ou mandar falsificar o sinal de algum desembargador, ouvidor, corregedor ou qualquer outro julgador, ou algum selo autêntico que faça fé, com propósito e intenção de causar dano ou de colher proveito..."), crimes against morality (e.g. rape, adultery, sodomy ["...teoricamente, a pena para a sodomia era muito severa, mas, na prática penal, constatamos que os sodomitas eram quase todos condenados ao degredo...Poucos dentre eles foram condenados à fogueira."]), and crimes against 'the person' (e.g. perjury, attempted murder).

Thus, the revised information is now correct and duly sourced. So, what else needs fixing? My hope is that, if we keep this healthy dialectic between us going on, the final article will end up being, if not respectable, at least acceptable. -- Dpecego (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpecego (talk • contribs)


 * I see that you are really intent on improving the section on the history of (something that clearly is not) Portuguese Brazilians. So I believe that the article's title should be changed into something 'neutral', such as "Brazilians of Portuguese descent". Would you agree with that? Ninguém (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction at Brazilian people
Hi. I see you tagged Brazilian people with a contradiction flag (along with a lot of inline flags). Could you please put a note on the talk page regarding what the contradiction is? Or perhaps use the "about=" part of the template, as it's unclear where the contradiction lies. Unfortunately, the way it's been put in with all the other tags looks a little WP:Pointy -- WORM  MЯOW  08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

About erasing notes
Erasing a note is considered an acknowledgment (per WP:OWNTALK). If you wish to revive recently archived discussions, remove them from the archive and restore them to the discussion page, preferably with an explanation for the renewal.Novangelis (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Brazil
We were talking and trying to reach a consensus in the Brazil talk page. You just stopped talking, did not respond anymore. Why? - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Those Brazilians again
I was about to revert this edit, but I looked in the cited source and was pretty sure that it had been mis-cited before the edit. (Actually I'm not sure what it does say -- of course I can read the numbers, but I'm not certain what it is that's being counted.)

I am of course as suspicious as anyone of a brand new username who's intent on making unexplained edits that greatly boost the number of people of Arab origin, but something here is odd. Could you take a look? -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you still there?
Ninguém, are you still editing on Wikipedia? It has been quite awhile since we've talked for the last time. I sent you an email but I got no response. Felipe Menegaz and I are trying to revive Wikiproject Brazil. We want to unite all editors interested in Brazilian history (regardles if they are Brazilians or not) and give them a place where they can feel safe and know that will have aid whatever they need. For the moment we are gathering everyone who is interested here. If you're interested, sign your name and add the pafe to your watch list! --Lecen (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Very occasionally, only. I think the project is structurally unsound, and have no will or time to correct the inflated numbers of whatever-Brazilians twice a month. But keep the good fight, by all means. Ninguém (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever-Brazilians
Ninguém, I am delighted to reencounter you, but feel dread at the prospect of reencountering issues (or non-issues) of Brazilian ethnicity.

Suggestions:
 * 1) Try to assume both benevolence and intelligence in fellow-editors. When you can no longer assume it, avoid openly doubting it. The avoidance will be painful, but a lot less painful than having to read and write screenfuls of bitterness. (Of course, when faced with irrefutable evidence of either malevolence or stupidity, say so, politely.)
 * 2) Concision.

Well, a mere glance at the article, on a subject about which I am of course totally ignorant, suggests again that part of the problem is conflation of (or confusion between) (A) actual and (B) perceived Portuguese origin. But are you also saying that the "subject" is a non-subject? I'm willing to believe that it is, but any attempt to have the article deleted is sure to end in failure. So instead silly bits should be (genially) removed from it, so that what remains doesn't mislead (even if it doesn't much enlighten).

Of course, telling other editors that they have added to the absurdity of the content is very likely to alienate them and make them harden their positions, perhaps intensifying the absurdity. If you're in a conflict, think like a judo player rather than a trench-warfare general. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Hoary. Thanks for the kind words.


 * The subject seems to be a non-subject. Here is what I get by googling for "Portuguese Brazilian".


 * But if we insist in having an article about this, some things should be said about it. If we are going to say that "Portuguese Brazilians (or Luso-brasileiros) are Brazilian citizens whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in Portugal", then we must have a source for it. The English phrase "Portuguese Brazilian" doesn't seem to be used at all. The Portuguese phrase "Luso-brasileiro" has a different meaning, not the one in the lead here. So, if Portuguese Brazilians are what is stated here, it seems necessary to also state who says that. (There is a fact tag to that sentence. It has never been replaced with a source. Nor do I think it is ever going to be, unless it is one of those "sources" that don't actually support the text...)


 * Most of the Brazilian population would be "Portuguese Brazilians" by such description (and by "most" I mean about 80% or 90%, not 50.01%). Those people do not consider themselves "Portuguese Brazilians"; as far as I am informed, there is no author, academic or otherwise, that calls them such (or "Luso-brasileiros" for what it matters). In fact, the only places where such idea can be found is Wikipedia (and the varied internet sites that mirror its contents). So the article would benefit from changing its definition into something more plausible: there are people in Brazil that are called "descendentes de portugueses", who in fact could constitute a subject for an article like this. They are not even remotely all "Brazilian citizens whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in Portugal"; they are a much smaller group. There are also other people who would be called "imigrantes portugueses"; they are an even smaller group nowadays, but they could be discussed in this article.


 * As it is, the lead of this article is merely a copy of the lead of the article on English Americans:


 * English Americans (occasionally known as Anglo-Americans, although this may have a wider linguistic meaning) are citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England.


 * This is maybe true of English Americans, though that same article goes on to say that


 * Americans reporting English ancestry made up an estimated 9.0% of the total U.S. population, and form the third largest European ancestry group after German Americans and Irish Americans.[6] However, demographers regard this as an undercount, as the index of inconsistency is high, and many, if not most, people from English stock have a tendency to identify simply as Americans or, if of mixed European ancestry, nominate a more recent and differentiated ethnic group.


 * but it certainly isn't true of "Portuguese Brazilians". The same caveats apply (a Brazilian person with no remarkable non-Portuguese ancestry would identify simply as Brazilian, a person with, say, Portuguese and Italian ancestries would be likely to identify as "descendente de italianos", not as "descendente de portugueses"), but we wouldn't say that this is an "undercount": except in the cases of people of recent and easily identifiable Portuguese ancestry, the subject is moot, having little more importance than the fact that some of us are certainly of ancient Phoenician, Arabic, Roman, or Celtic ancestry (that doesn't turns us into Phoenician-Brazilians or Roman-Brazilians, by the way).


 * There is little hope that the situation can be changed, though. Trying to remake the lead so that it refers just to actual "descendentes de portugueses" as they are called and understood in Brazil (which would imply changing the whole article, to avoid the confusion with people who were here in the 18th century or who descend from those who were) is going to be reverted, because people actually like the comfortable idea that the relation between Brazil and Portugal mirrors that between the US and England and the idea that people can actually be classified by their ancestries, and Wikipedia does not have quality control (we can talk for months about the changes and improvements to be made to an article, implement them, make a better article, but if we don't undertake the task of visiting everyday to check what is going on, then the articles will eventually be degraded). So it seems to me to be Sysiphus' work. Registering a dissenting opinion in the Talk Pages is possibly more productive; while less people are likely to read it, it is also less likely to be erased or distorted, and those who read these pages will be able to compare opinions and weigh them against evidence or logic.Ninguém (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)