User talk:Rauzaruku

Have a cookie!


Sophus Bie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I just wanted to say that your contributions are quite impressive for such a new account. I'd say you hit the ground running, but judging by the topic of your edits, instead, you hit the water swimming! Happy editing!  Sophus Bie  (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Cheers!    Sophus Bie  (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

GAN nominations
I am currently performing two GA reviews. I am unable to accept your invitation at this time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Estadunidense
Listen here you little shit, stop. I have sources you don't. I am unbiased you are. I win you loose. tchau, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to say I crossed the line and I am sorry. We can have opposing views and be civil, but I ask that you do the same.


 * Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Your recent editing history at Portuguese language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaruku, please share your point of view (based on sources, not merely your own opinion) on Portuguese language talk page. The link is here. --Lecen (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rauzaruku, you need to understand that calling people "psychopaths", "mentally ill", is unacceptable. You'll certainly be blocked pretty soon if you continue doing that. This is not like the PT Wiki where everyone can do whatever he or she wants. Usually the people who do that are civil-POV pushers (take a look at the wikilink, it's a good read).


 * Something else: you added this to American (word). Nowhere the source provided says that the word Estadounidense is used to "offend or satirize the Americans, [and] is used by extremist left-wing politicians (communists)". It doesn't even mention communists. People get topic banned for not being faithful to what sources say.


 * I came here to help you. I have no interest on seeing you get in trouble. --Lecen (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One warning, no more: any more posts like this one may result in sanctions, a topic ban at least. Don't call other editors "cowards" for demanding sources, they're required and you know it. I don't see a case for the use of Estadounidense as an extreme insult, at least nothing like what you assert.  Christiano has apologized, but you've continued with increasing aggressiveness. Please treat other editors with respect., and please avoid using articles on language (or any other article) as a soapbox.   Acroterion   (talk)   12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're blocked for this comment after you were specifically warned not to do it again.   Acroterion   (talk)   22:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando de Abreu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Medal order
You're obviously unfamiliar with the customs that developed in WikiProject Athletics over the years. Also, you might have a look at WP:BRD to learn Wikipedia standard procedure in content dispute.

Anyways, what do you mean by "order of importance"? Who determines the importance? You? --bender235 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What I know is that: the medal tables are filled anyway, because in the same article I'm seeing tables with different medal and time orders. So do not talk to me about rules. You, when you fill the meda tables, not follow and don't observe the actually order of the frames. I'm arranging them in a logical way: order of importance of the medals (gold-silver-bronze) + date order (first to last medal). What are you complaining about? I'm just fixing a giant mess.Rauzaruku (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no "giant mess". For years, the order has been this: date (latest top, earliest bottom), event (by IAAF order, see virtually every Wikipedia article on an IAAF event). This has been consensus for years. Now, this "new order" you're talking about, where has it been discussed if I may ask? --bender235 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a rule, just a "consensus". So, this consensus is based in an anti-natural order and horrible way to read the medals logically (gold medals have the bigger importance, my brain explodes reading a bronze medal above a gold medal, or all mixed anyway.). Cool. You need to think who started this absurd and reason that this order does not provides. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what you think of the established order, before you start this kind of wide-spread modification you could've at least asked if the consensus had changed. I supposed you do that now, before creating any further damage to Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm just helping the reader of Wikipedia not see a medal table all messy and without logical organization. And this "bronze medal first, gold second and silver third" or "mixed date order" don't help nobody. I suggest you ignore this crazy consensus. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem unable to grasp what I just wrote. We had logical organization. We used the IAAF order of events, not some you just made up. --bender235 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you don't use any logical organization. Gold medals are the most valuable, and the reader need to see them first, to do a organization into their minds. It's useless to put medals in order that the athlete won. That does not matter to the reader. The reader wants to know the golds, silvers and bronzes the athlete won, and starting from the first to last, you still make stupid to put on the contrary, to leave everyone confused. It is not possible for the reader to make a decent compilation of his head, with everything so messy. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion here. Please leave a comment. --bender235 (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to impose your order of medals on every article? There's still an ongoing discussion, far from any consensus. --bender235 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The "medals in the order they were taken", this is already done by the timeline that is placed in the middle of articles, that huge frame. The medal table was a mere repetition of the timeline, so it has to be even modified to do any sense.
 * I'm not only changing it, I'm standardizing medal tables that had more than one method in themselves. Don't make sense to have a medal table messy to the point of not having the same methodology in itself.
 * I found a lot of articles with the table already adjusted the way I'm doing, so this old table does not have standing in the way you think.
 * Consensus is not a rule, I'm going to change because the current table does not make sense, it's horrible to read, and I'm not seeing that passion throughout the table as she was. Rauzaruku (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of César Cielo
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article César Cielo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ThaddeusB -- 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of César Cielo
The article César Cielo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:César Cielo for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ThaddeusB -- 19:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thiago Pereira
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thiago Pereira you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- 13:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thiago Pereira
The article Thiago Pereira you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Thiago Pereira for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- 11:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. ''The situation you reported is too complex for WP:AIV -- it was not simple vandalism or obvious spam. Please open a thread at WP:ANI if you have an incident that needs administrator attention. '' &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:This is democracy
For sure. But I'm Brazilian, I don't live in YOUR kind of democracy. And I'm accusing you of cyberstalking and cyberbullying. Stop this stupid edit warring at Rodrigo Constantino, Instituto Millenium and in any article that I edit. Have a nice day. - Al Lemos (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish. The edit war is only yours, I'm trying developing the articles and you are only trying to stop me. Rauzaruku (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. You are such a gentleman; always with weasel words for your masters. Don't follow me, fellow - I'm not the 21:00 h soap opera. - Al Lemos (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Al Lemos (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
You are both getting exactly the same message here. I've fully protected two pages for 3 days. I expect to see you discussing the changes on the talk pages during this time and attempting to come to some sort of consensus. You are both technically in breach of the 3RR, but I feel that it is best for the project to try and get you both discussing the changes you're trying to make.

I've watchlisted both the articles and if I see edit warring when the protection expires, I'm going to start blocking. --GraemeL (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm open to discussions, Al Lemos aren't, he just reverts me. Where I can ask for an adiministrator to block him, if he continues with this type of thing, before 3 days? This user just wants to block me, and I don't want to do any edition war. Rauzaruku (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pig (disambiguation) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style changes
Hello Rauzaruku, I've noticed all of the swimming articles you have written and want to thank you for all the information you have added to Wikipedia. There are a couple of things you might want to pay attention to so the articles better fit with the WP:MOS. Thanks again for your work and I look forward to seeing more of your articles. SchreiberBike talk 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dates should not use ordinals in the form 21st of August, Wikipedia style is just to say 21 August or August 21 - per WP:DATEFORMAT
 * Ordinals in English are ridiculously complicated. You may want to read English numerals so you can get them right.
 * Wikipedia style is to not write USA, but US, U.S. or United States per WP:NOTUSA.
 * I notice in the swimming articles, you use the phrase "All times shown are in seconds/minutes." I think it would more sense to say "All times are in minutes and seconds" or something like that.

A barnstar for you!

 * Heh; reading up it looks like I repeat myself ;). Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada PAG results
Rauzaruku, greetings. In response to the question you left me (about Canada medals at the Pan Am Games), have you tried the Canadian Olympic Committee website (olympic.ca)? The PASO website (www.paso-odepa.org) may have something too. - Hooperswim (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Arena Corinthians
Hello, I've seen you being involved in an edit war in Arena Corinthians. I do agree with you that it's not right for user 130.88.164.18 to continue to delete your edits, but that does not mean you have to violate WP:PA, as you did with this edit. The section headline counts as violating WP:PA. I suggest that you do not send retorts back to him, and rather report everything and keep quiet. Good day. The Triple M  01:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Rauzaruku. I reviewed the sources and the text you added do not match the sources on some instances. I could not easily rewrite it, so I invite you to reformat the text if you think it still should be added and have it agree with the sources. In the meantime, I reverted the article to the WP:GA version. Would you mind to discuss changes on the talk page before changing the article, to avoid an edit war?Legionarius (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Arena Corinthians". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 03:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks
It is considered a personal attack to make unfounded accusations of vandalism towards another editor. "Vandalism", on Wikipedia, has a very specific meaning: "the deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia's integrity". Users who disagree with your edits are not vandals, and accusing and reporting them as such is regarded as abuse. The same goes for your prejoritive claim that User:Legionarius is a single-purpose account - whilst he may have a particular interest in a subject, he has edited a variety of articles and does not fit the pattern of an SPA. I strongly suggest you refrain from this sort of hyperbole in future, and restrict yourself to discussing the content, not the contributor. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
Hi Rauzaruku, I've just closed Sockpuppet investigations/Rauzaruku. I've redirected your previous account's pages to your current account so there will be no confusion in the future. Please only edit from one account from now on. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit requests
Hi Rauzaruku, I recently reviewed your two requests (late October) for copyedits on articles concerning Brazilian political figures and propaganda. In my judgment, neither article is suitable for a copyedit at this time, though the current text does need work. I recommend that when the edit warring slows down, and all sides of the controversial issue are suitably treated and sourced, you may request a copyedit again. Also keep in mind that there may be other relevant WikiProjects to consult for other kinds of cleanup - Copyediting specifically treats grammatical style and tone, and formatting of Wikipedia articles. If a requested article has other cleanup issues that have not been identified, a copyeditor may only tag an article for those things and move on without actually copyediting, as I have done. Thank you for your diligence in helping to curate Wikipedia! Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 10:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion here; feel free to join the discussion. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Partido da Imprensa Golpista
Hi Rauzaruku, I've done a cleanup job on the article. You can find my notes and the removed text at its talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks at WP:ANI and continued edit warring at Arena Corinthians (including BLP violations). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for casting aspersions, harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. User:Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You were told to stop, you decided to escalate instaed. The block duration has been chosen after an examination of your block log.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , since I have blocked first, would you please restore the two weeks block duration? I would object to a 31h block.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that Ymblanter, looks like we clicked "block" at just about the exact same time. I've restored your settings. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)