User talk:Ptah, the El Daoud

oi
listen up mate, stop removing my pics yeh? It was better than the other one. --Rfeester 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said in my second revert summary, "Collages, while fun, are not encyclopedic; feel free to replace this image with another specific (that is, singular) image. thanks!" --(Ptah, the El Daoud 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

god is not Great
The discussion of this issue has gone decidedly in the other direction, and I have tired of fighting about it. If I am going to get into a fight here on Wikipedia, it is going to be over in the Irish Republican-related articles, wherein I feel more is at stake. As far as this book is concerned, I believe that McGeddon is wrong in bringing up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoS:TM, since this book title is not a trademark. This is mostly a matter of convention, i.e., the Times Literary Supplement is always going to capitalize god, especially at the beginning of a title. The author's intentions---which, granted, we do not know---are not even the issue. At any rate, as I say, I have tired of debating it. It was a minor point, in the larger scheme of things. --- Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave up long ago; indeed, I only entered the debate because of the anon's churlish attitude. Peace. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
 * I rather thought that you had, given your relative silence. I must be honest and say that I only kept reverting the changes because of various anonymous users' unwillingness to explain why they changed the title, and because discussion on the talk page had ended without a consensus decision.  At this point, as I said, it is irrelevant to me.  Peace to you as well. ---  Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Coup d´état
Hello, I thnk we are working in th same direction and there isn no probelm to say that "the country where ever since there as strugle for democracy...". The phrase is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat On the other hand I don´t agree with yr phrase that it was never proven the comunism argument. You need to cite where you found this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=142165612&oldid=142159111 I also think that liberals, social liberals were never threaten by militars...you also need to cite this. --Ludovicapipa yes? 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Ludovicapipa,


 * You have probably already seen my revision. Here's a quick point by point explanation:


 * The phrase "the country where ever since there was a struggle for republicanism and democracy" is a fairly awkward read for a native English speaker. It could be rewritten, but I think that my revision (which stated that, a decade after the coup, democratic reform was slowly forced on the government by the President) serves as a simple and practical introduction, and I do not see any reason to oppose it.  At the same time, I have no problem stating somewhere within the article that: a) there have been numerous movements in favor of republicanism and democracy throughout the history of Brazil; and, b) that a burgeoning republican and democratic movement largely inspired the government to accept gradual political reform.


 * Second, the military government never presented definitive proof that a communist revolution was inevitable, let alone whether the Goulart administration was going to succumb to it. The Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro was larger than the Communist factions, and the military--while clearly anti-Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro--was staunchly anti-communist.  Goulart and the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro may have supported defensive anti-communist measures if they were necessary, and if the military acted constitutionally (that is, at Goulart's orders).  The military, as we all know, chose to ignore the constitution and follow a different path of action.  I do not have the time tonight to find a citation, but I will surely make the time to do so on Friday or Saturday (my weekend).  Until then, the citation needed template should suffice.


 * Third, the Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro was suppressed, and many of its social democrat members were forced into exile. Even conservative/moderate social democrats, like the future President Cardoso, fled into exile.  I agree that liberals should not be included in such a statement until I can provide a citation.  I added a citation after social democrats explaining the Cardoso situation.  I will find other citations regarding social democrats on Friday or Saturday.


 * Lastly, in English we always capitalize Brazilian, and the phrase "data base" is officially accepted in dictionaries as "database." I removed "1964 Brazilian coup d'état" from the categories, as the DEFAULTSORT template sorts the title of the page within categories.


 * If you have any thoughts, let me know (and if you make any revisions, feel free to elaborate). It may take us a few edits, but I think that we will find common ground.  --(Ptah, the El Daoud 05:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Hello
Hello Ptah,
 * Iam sorry abt the undo movements on this article. I didn´t understand: you think the first phrase is "bad english" kind of? Hum, maybe, :I don´t fully agree, though. If you´d like to improve this phrase, feel free to do so. I think it´s quite good to let the reader know abt Br´s history: we always looked for, and struggle for republicanism, democracy, end of colonization....
 * IAm sure we will find a common ground, No doubt abt the caps Brazilian, sure abt that. Br´s dictatoship,frommy poitn of view, was blodless,not as violent as that from Chile, Argentina, and etc.
 * I´d like to observe thta Fernando henrique was a communist and considered one, that´s wjy I think persecutin was restricted to those who behave as communists.
 * Feel free to write on my discussion page.
 * Best regards,

--Ludovicapipa yes? 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense (my Portuguese is far, far worse than your English!), but "the country where ever since there was a struggle for republicanism and democracy" is an awkward sentence, if only for the use of "ever since." Ever since implies specific change ("ever since ____ happened"), and, in English, we normally use "ever since" in one of these ways: "ever since I moved here, I've been..." or end a sentence by saying something like "...and I've been that way ever since." If you cut that phrase, I would be interested to see an alternative version of the broder idea of your sentence in a future edit.

I will certainly have to look into Cardoso(!) and I will revise the citation (to place it behind the Communists, not Social Democrats). I nevertheless am confident that I will be able to provide several substantial citations regarding the social democrats who supported Goulart.

I would also hope that you oppose the suggest merger of the non-NPOV splinter page (which was inserted into the page after my last edit). The page that we are currently working on contains far more pertinent data, has been sourced--and, as our debate proves--is a work in progress.

Anyway, I have to sleep. Goodnight. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Communists and noncommunists
Hello Ptah,
 * To be honest I don´t really think that by that time there were something between comunists and non comunist. There were these two, but there was no such a thing as social democrat...etc. There were those aspiring for democracy and comunist on the other hand.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludovicapipa --This is my talkpage, if you´d to talk with me or leave msgs.

Tks
 * --Ludovicapipa yes? 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ludo, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I don't really think that by that time there were something between comunists and non comunist." If you mean that you don't really think that there were divisions within the Brazilian left, I would have to argue that you are mistaken. Communism implies a strict adherence to Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or, in the case of minor factions, Trotskyism, and the primary force in the Brazilian left wing movement was the populist  socialist Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro.  To suggest that Vargas, Kubitschek, Goulart, and, of course, Leonel Brizola were communists is to completely ignore their own deliberate disassociation with the various communist factions--and, more importantly, the time and effort that each of these figures dedicated to cultivating and promoting their own populist socialist party.  Consequently, I have added populist socialist to the sentence we have previously discussed to limit the emphasis placed on social democrats, as the populist socialists were far more numerous (and had successfully elected three candidates as President of the nation).  If I have misunderstood you, and/or have any other thoughts, suggestions or issues that you would like to discuss, feel free to leave another message.  I plan on spending more time on the article on the weekend. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Well, I was rather talking abt the people, ordinary people, were divided: communists and non communists and those aspiring for democracy. As for politicians, I really can´t talk. As far as I know Fernando Henrique was considered a communist or someone who wanted democracy --but not a social democrat.
 * --Ludovicapipa yes? 10:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ludo, I have removed the term "social democrat," as it does indeed appear that the term was not in common usage at the popular level in Brazilian politics at the time. However, I did find a source which established Cardoso's (and his father's) role in the populist socialist Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro, while, at the same time, explained that both the PTB and the Cardosos themselves worked in union with local communist organizations when there was common cause or common interest.  This reference was added to the end of the revised Cardoso citation (it is titled "A dependence on politics: Fernando Henrique Cardoso and sociology in Brazil").


 * I still need to address the citation needed template, but I will do that later this week. Are there any other concerns you have regarding the current version of the article? --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Social xx communists
Hello Ptah,
 * Yes, I agree now, yes.

Although I still believe he was considered a communist. But we could find a common ground concerning this social-democrat definition.
 * As for that phrase: "A country where ever since there was a struggle for democracy and republicanism.
 * Do you agree?

Best
 * --Ludovicapipa yes? 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have inserted my own version, as I believe that it both captures the spirit of your statement and reads a little comfortably in English. I have also inserted section titles.  What do you think?--(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * It is true abt people gathering towards democratical changes during censorship and dictatorship. Although I like very much the phrase above, cause I believe it shows the reader a historical concern.
 * --Ludovicapipa yes? 13:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Disc. Page
Anyway, Ptah, I really think we should have this talk on the disc page:
 * .
 * --Ludovicapipa yes? 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Collaboration

 * Olá! O template acima é um lembrete que é enviado aos participantes do Brazil Collaboration, toda vez que um novo artigo é selecionado. Como as nomeações não atingiram o número de votos necessários (2), eu tomei liberdade de renovar a colaboração que não é atualizada há meses. O atual Brazil Collaboration é o artigo Brazil. Quem fizer as melhores edições no artigo dentro de um mês, receberá uma medalha de honra. Obrigado e bom trabalho. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Communist state
Are you still around? Communist state could use some help. Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands
I have nominated Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ryan 4314  (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ptah, the El Daoud! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 8 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Wellington Dias -
 * 2) Jaques Wagner -
 * 3) Binho Marques -
 * 4) João Batista Oliveira de Araujo -
 * 5) Rui Falcão -
 * 6) Aloízio Mercadante -
 * 7) Marco Aurélio Garcia -
 * 8) Ricardo Berzoini -

Nomination of Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Liam987 (talk)  16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of political parties in Australia and New Zealand by country


The article List of political parties in Australia and New Zealand by country has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This page seems to have no real use. Both countries their own page."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Idan (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of political parties in Australia and New Zealand by country


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of political parties in Australia and New Zealand by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)