Talk:Copacabana/Archive 1

Rsazevedo you lied to me

Rsazevedo, you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays" but you displayed an incredible degree of nationalism when you created a page redirect just to get your precious Copacabana Bolivia on top of the alphabetical list.

But whatever, I would never create page redirects just to satisfy my nationalist desires and by doing so corrupt the Wikipedia spirit. I rather have Copacabana Rio on the bottom of that list because I am impartial.

Don't worry your Copacabana (Bolivia) is top of list at Wikipedia's expense. I am just saddened that you don't walk the talk.

EconomistBR (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism?! Haha. I am not Bolivian -- I am Brazilian. May I also remind you that Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks. I am going to put forth a complaint about your behaviour. Who are you to speak about "Wikipedia spirit", after this? Shame on you. Rsazevedo (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care if you complain and I am not making personal attacks. I have nothing agaist you is just that you lied to me when you said that Wikipedia "is not the place for nationalistic displays".

Thus far we've had 3 methods of organizing the list: Alphabetical, relevance and now "logical order".

In all 3 of them your Copacabana Bolivia comes on top of the list, the odds of that happening are 0,46%. This is proves that you are bised and corrupted Wikipedia for personal ends. It's quite sad really, I always try to be impartial, you've given up on that.

EconomistBR (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mentally challenged? I'll explain to you for the last time, since it seems that you are having a hard time understanding this: Copacabana (Bolivia) should come first in this list for the simple reason that it was the FIRST place to be named Copacabana in the world, and all others are in one way or another named after it (since, as I explained before, your beloved beach in your beloved Rio was baptized after the patron saint of that city and that country). By the way, the correct spelling is "biased", and not BISED; you should know better, cause you seem to fit that concept perfectly. And if there was one thing that you WASN'T in this discussion it is impartial. Now go watch the fireworks in Copacabana and stop crying, Mr Carioca. :) Rsazevedo (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the Saint was named after the city, and Copacabana Rio was named after the Saint.

But I guess your "work" here is done. Your precious Copacabana Bolivia, which you visited, is first on the list. You've spread your personal views at Wikipedia corrupting this encyclopedia, and then lied to others about Wikipedia not being "the place for nationalistic displays".

3 organizing methods the same result - this is Rsazevedo at work Good job, some Brazilian you are.

EconomistBR (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be "nationalistic" if I am not even Bolivian? Man, you really are a nut job! Get a life, carioca! Rsazevedo (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no shame, you should admit that you are biased. After 3 organizing methods with the same result your lame excuses are a joke.

BTW you wrote "nationalistic" not me. EconomistBR (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Made some changes. This is not a thing to edit war over, nor is there a need for either of you two to personaly attack each other. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, could you explain the criteria you used? I looked in the page you refered to and did not find anything regarding specifically the proper procedure on naming places. Whatever the criteria, I am pretty sure it is not alphabetical order, neither a nightclub should come before a city. It seems to me quite logical and reasonable that towns and cities should come before neighbourhoods, and then nightclubs. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my post above. If this Disruptive editing continues i will be issuing blocks.--Hu12 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered me properly; I would like to know where exactly in the page you referred to does it say that my version of the disambiguation page is wrong and yours or EconomistBR's are right. Clarify things for the good of Wikipedia, please. Rsazevedo (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected this page because of edit warring. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point--Hu12 (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this has gotten out of hand, and the personal attacks are unacceptable. Rather than dishing out blocks for edit warring and WP:NPA, My attempted was to stop this and and find a MOS solution, based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Apparently one of the two parties involved is Refusing to 'get the point'. This page will remain protected untill both of you acknowledge and agree to cease warring, and end disrupting Wikipedia. Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground.

Individual entries
- Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line. For example:
  - "Dark Star" (song), a song by the Grateful Dead
  - not: "Dark Star" (song), a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead
Order of entries
- In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below.

These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. --Hu12 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Hu12 you left some mistakes when you exercised your authoritarian prerrogative and froze the page for editing:

"New York (city) nightclub" -- the (city) should not have been kept if that is not a link

"Australia|Australian" -- you forgot to remove that part of the link, which was previously between brackets

Please be more careful when editing other people's alterations, for the good of Wikipedia. Carelessness generates sloppy articles.

Now please, could you clarify what criteria do you use to determin which are the "most-used meanings", Hu12? Rsazevedo (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory and slanderous accusation made by Rsazevedo against Hu12

Rsazevedo calls Hu12 an abusive administrator: "victim of abuse of power by an administrator"
Rsazevedo accuses Hu12 of having bias: "You have revealed yourself to be tremendously partial do EconomistBR's opinion"
Rsazevedo calls Hu12 a dictator: "I would appreciate some further explanation of your actions, rather than unsubstantiated dictatorial acts"
Rsazevedo calls Hu12 arrogant: "exercised his prerrogative to block the page in a somewhat arrogant and authoritarian way"
Rsazevedo calls Hu12's opinion unfair: "EconomistBR, the user in question, appealed to an administrator, User:Hu12, who took an unfair and unbalanced view"

This smearing campaign and personal attacks of Rsazevedo against Hu12 is Rsazevedo's vengeance against Hu12, because Hu12's impartial ruling didn't produce satisfactory results to Rsazevedo.

EconomistBR (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your displays of impartiality and civility, EconomistBR:

Once again I call on you, EconomistBR, to refrain at once from offending me. I don't think I have to remind you that you're breaking all possible rules in proper behaviour in Wikipedia, and I once again call for a responsible administrator to punish you accordingly.

Keep in mind:

Wikipedia:Civility: be civil and avoid harassment.
Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

*Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Penalties for behaviour such as the one you're displaying vary in length from a three-month to a one-year ban. Rsazevedo (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]