Jump to content

Talk:Bruno Fratus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong / useless information

[edit]

PcGomes put this on page:

"In 2015, he competed the Brazilian Championship - Long course (Maria Lenk Trophy) for Esporte Clube Pinheiros. He won the 50-metre freestyle final, beating César Cielo with a time of 21.74. In the qualifying, he repeated his best time of 21.47, which had already qualified him for the FINA World Championship in Kazan.".

I am removing these information on this page for the following reasons:

1-USELESS INFROMATION - Maria Lenk is a regional competition. Although it is the biggest competition of Brazil with the José Finkel, there are many international competitions with more importance, and often, athletes are not at its maximum at the Maria Lenk. In the case of Fratus and Cielo, their level is well above the other and they have guaranteed a place in Brazil in the 50m freestyle competition. That is, they swim the Maria Lenk to confirm the vacancy and not to beat world record, they do not swim in maximum condition them. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the Fratus won the Cielo or otherwise, for the best mark of them is unlikely to be reached at the Maria Lenk - as has not been reached this time. It is only important to put the mark of Maria Lenk on the page, whether it was a top 3 global mark at the time, South American record, world record or something. If users start putting the Maria Lenk times to all swimmers, the pages will be full of text with little or no relevance.

2-WRONG INFORMATION - Article already states that the lifetime best of Bruno Fratus in the 50 meter freestyle is the time of 21.41 obtained in Brazilian Open in 2014. (note, also, that the Brazilian Open is as relevant as the Maria Lenk, but not it is customary to put time this competition. However, as the best brand of his life, was written in the article, becomes important). PcGomes user put that the lifetime best of Bruno Fratus was 21.47, which is a WRONG information, so.

It is not my interest retrieve information from swimming articles, I am taking this information solely because I consider IRRELEVANT, WRONG and UNNECESSARY to the article. Star Fiver (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Information is not included in Wikipedia because it is useful, and it shouldn't be removed because of someone's opinion that it is useless.
  2. The information was sourced ([1][2]), which shows that it was important enough to receive coverage.
  3. If there are errors in information, correct it rather than removing the whole paragraph. You seem to only dispute the factual basis of the words "best time"; this could easily be removed while leaving the rest of the content there.
Thank you for discussing your edits. I do not really have much of an opinion either way on whether the content should be included but wanted to provide some counterarguments to some of your points, which do not seem to be valid reasons. You have touched upon issues of the content giving undue weight to a minor competition, which could well be a reason for removal of this content. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is what I'm talking about, thanks to support my speech. This is a undue weight, so I'm removing. There are tons of competitions more important than Maria Lenk. I have also included, such as IP, Maria Lenk information - when they are relevant, which is not the case. There is no condition to put everything that happens on the swimmer's life on the page, and this is not necessary, or the article becomes a cluttered repository of information. Please understand that I have no interest in removing text from Brazilian swimmers articles, I want to increase them to the maximum - but the text needs to be really relevant. I understand very much about swimming, and I know what is relevant and what is not.Star Fiver (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am in an effort to catalogue Fratus's seasons. The information there is about how he qualified for the World Finals. Therefore, it is reasonable to have some sentences about it. If some information is wrong, just fix it. But do not remove the complete work of another's editor work out of nothing without discussing about it first.

Moreover, the correct place to do so is here. Not on my talk page, where you and Bazaira came with a bully attitude. My literal translation of what you posted there in Portuguese follows: Go back to the crazy losers' Wikipedia, that one in Portuguese, full of retards paid by Partido dos Trabalhadores. Brazilians just know about football, and nothing else. Thus, stay quiet in your insignificance. Go edit the article about Tabajara FC, will you. If intend to make your edits respected, and want your place to remove the information, we are going to this this, here, and respectfully. Pcgomes (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PcGomes is insisting on replacing unimportant information about qualifying, something that happens all the time, with all swimmers. And keep wrong information about "best time of life" of the subject. You will be appealing to "bullying", which has nothing do with the article itself, distorting the discussion on the subject? The problem is that you do not understand the subject. Just it. I have nothing against Fratus, the problem is that you don't know what is important in swimming. Go study it. If you get information proving that this Fratus' time was one of the best times in the world in this year, you can keep the phrase in the article, but REWRITE YOU. And YOU, please remove this wrong text over time be "the best of his life." YOU put the wrong information, YOU fix.Star Fiver (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour towards Pcgomes is indefensible and will not be tolerated. While not relevant to this discussion, your actions were uncivil. Please do not post messages like that on people's talk pages again.
Furthermore, no-one has any roles or responsibilities here. We're all completely unpaid volunteers. Telling someone that they have to be the one to rewrite something is lazy and inappropriate. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote it wrong, so you will defend him? Super lol. You need to turn into an adult too. This is serious, all wikipedia articles will turn into garbage if everybody thinks like that. Why the little brazilian can't fix the mess he did? HE PUT WRONG INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE, can you understand that basic thing??? Star Fiver (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to use tu quoque, but you use phrases like "Super lol" and "HE PUT WRONG INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE" and accuse others of "[needing] to turn into an adult"? I'm defending Pcgomes, without commenting on the disputed content, because your behaviour is rude, aggressive and seems to be trying to deter well-intentioned editors from the project. You are not helping your argument by USING CAPITALS, excessive bold, resorting to ad hominem and making personal attacks. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So? I am right, he is wrong. Why wikipedians like to forgot this and go to the "behavior way"?? Fix the article and I'm going out. I don't care about PcGomes, I care abou the article. He is putting useless and wrong information, and he don't accept this. He don't know about swimming, and he don't accept this. So? Be objective. Star Fiver (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me to question my knowledge about swimming or any other topic. If it matters for you, just check my history of contributions to articles related to swimming. However, it does not even make a difference who I am . All the mentioned facts had citations to reliable sources. Is there something wrong? Fix the incorrect information. Are the facts irrelevant? No, they are not. Qualifying for the World Finals is an important moment in a Swimmer's season. Do you disagree? You have the chance to make your point the discussion page. But keep in mind that taking the road of personal offences, writing in bold and CAPITALS does not make your claims more true. Pcgomes (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop to be a crybaby. You messed the article with wrong information. Fix it. This is not Brazil. Star Fiver (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to explain what you mean by This is not Brazil. Wasn't the personal offence in Portuguese enough? It does not matter how much you think you know about swimming. You are just one more anonymous contributor at Wikipedia. Even if you could prove that you are that knowledgeable, it would still not make a difference. You are not the only contributor here, and certainly not the owner of the article. Therefore you must interact cordially with others. Pcgomes (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the PcGomes block. He insists on mantain wrong information in the article. And he is using the administrators like puppets to do it. Bazaira (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

[edit]

Right, I've put full protection on this page for 24 hours while you discuss here and reach consensus. @Pcgomes: if you maintain your information is correct and relevant then explain fully why. The rest of you if you say it is not relevant or incorrect then explain why - bare statements of "it's wrong" or "it's useless" are not acceptable. Nthep (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PcGomes information is wrong, because the best time Fratus did in the 50 meter freestyle is 21.41 and it was already referenced in the article. He put it is 21.47, and leaves no other editor withdraw. He thinks he is the owner of the article, and he is not accepting contrary argument. The other problem is wanting to clutter the article with regional classifications to World Championhips. The article already has all the relevant Swimmer data, ie, participation and medals in various international championships, and does not require a simple and mere regional classification where he doesn't hit his personal record, or a continental / world record. I only see this quote as relevant to the article if the time was one of the world's best in the year, because the swimmer already has much greater achievements than that. If it were a novice swimmer who never had been classified for nothing, I even understand, but imagine if Michael Phelps had in his article, all classifications reported one by one? His article would be something unreadable. So this information is no longer important in the career of Fratus own. Bazaira (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned information is a highlight from Bruno Fratus' 2015 season. It states how we qualified for the World Finals, at the same time that he outperformed the Olympic champion Cesar Cielo. The information is obviously an important moment in this season. I have no clue why the other user wants to remove such highlight, given that this article is quite empty. Just compare this article to Cielo's, and you will see that the article there is way more complete than this. At no point it states that the mention 21'47 is Fratus best time ever, just that it was his best time for the qualification's sake. However, I may agree that this part is ambiguous and could easily fix this. Pcgomes (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the part of the article that should be developed is the part that is already written, but in a very basic way. Why you don't develop his marvelous participation in the Olympics, where he placed 4th? Or his great gold at Pan Pacific? The Fratus' article can improve a lot, but I do not think, frankly, that should be detailed regional ratings of any swimmer, unless it happened something very important there. Keep in mind that Cesar Cielo lost to Fratus, but both Cielo and Fratus were not at their maximum because their vacancy is guaranteed in Brazil, both have a high level remaining before the other swimmers, which makes this event of little relevance. And the swimming world knows it. Do not hold on to the national championships, it is not there that swimmers give their maximum when they are so powerful like Fratus or Cielo. Try developing parts of the article where swimmers are at International competitions. About the 2015 Fratus season, his highlight will not be a "victory over Cielo at Maria Lenk" but his participation in the Pan American Games in Toronto and in the World Championships in Kazan, everybody knows that. Bazaira (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First: stop using the I know everything in the swimming world card. Nobody knows who you are; and actually no one cares. If you're so knowledgeable about the topic, why won't you develop his marvelous participation in the Olympics? It is indeed missing a better text. However, the lack of a good text about his participation in the main competitions does not at all corroborates with your claim that the fact is irrelevant. The Brazilian Trophy may not be the peak of Fratus' season, but is still a meaningful competition, especially when the participation qualifies him to the world finals, at the same time he performs better than an Olympic champion. And all in all, it was just a couple of sentences. Pcgomes (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Pcgomes user is defending fanatically his text, thinking the Fratus victory over Cielo is something relevant. Sorry to say, but it is not.It would be relevant if it were the Olympics, a World Championships, even in Pan American Games, where the result is really relevant. But it's a lot of ignorance find it relevant beat somebody in a national championship that aims solely to qualify two swimmers per event, and where two swimmers (in this case, Cielo and Fratus) already had a guaranteed place for lack of competition. It would be nice you notice that the user only has the concern of defending the text he put it, and not the reality. Another thing that jumps out at me is to realize that the user does not intend to develop the article, and is only able to put a weak text like this, and is still annoy users who understand deeply the subject, playing administrators against him. Wiki-Law-Specialists who do not know edit articles are the worst cancers of Wikipedia. sSorry, but no one cares if Fratus defeated Cielo in a minor championship. Only who don't understand about the thing. Uruzan (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am defending a text that has a reason to exit. But I am not being fanatic enough to defend it to the expense of insulting you, despite you have insulted me non-stop. Not to mention that you have been creating fake accounts, to keep on bashing me. Again: it is your problem if you think that you know all about the swimming world. You could even be Bruno Fratus himself. But the fact the Fratus outperformed Cielo is indeed something meaningful, which is highlighted in the cited article's headline and body. To conclude: I am just a regular contributor, as many. It is not my obligation to expand the article in the way that you want. By the way, I have not seen a single contribution from you to this article. Pcgomes (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear about something here. All I am interested in is in making sure the edit war on this article stops, I am not going to arbitrate on what it "right" or not, that is up to interested editors to come to a consensus about what is relevant to include in the article. So far it appears to me that this is falling into a discussion about whether permformance in the 2015 national championship is relevant or not. Concentrate on the content and drop the personal attacks on each others motives. Nthep (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: User:Uruzan does look like a sock to me (per the duck test); is that not worth pointing out? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, possibly not, but raise it at WP:SPI for investigation. When discussions are getting a bit tense quick decisions based on rapid assessments do not help. Nthep (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruno Fratus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bruno Fratus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruno_Fratus&oldid=1207293704"