User talk:Mato/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mato. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Account on sh.wiki

It is free. --OC Ripper (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Mato (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good Faith

The edit was described as Gratuitous. "Gratuitous" explains the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.97.215 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You could say that about anything. It might be best to explain why you think that in the future. Mato (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you being argumentative? You claimed that there was "no explanation." 74.195.97.215 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that quote from, but you're right, I should apologise - I used a template which implied that you had not entered an edit summary, which you did. I will therefore remove it from your talk page. I should, instead, have placed a message saying that your edit summary was insufficient. Mato (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

REPLY: Here is a more fully developed explanation for you. Wikipedia's alleged good faith policy (I have not found it to be true) is not relevant to the definition of bona fides (i.e., good faith). It would be like writing an entry about "great guy" and then using myself as an example of what constitutes a great guy. As previously stated, it is gratuitous (i.e., without apparent reason or justification).

Santiago Muñez

Would you like to have a look at that revert you made to Santiago Muñez - I'd just reverted further and I think we edit conflicted and you've inadvertently re-added some invalid content. This is a fictional character isn't it? —SMALL JIM 21:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well would you look at that! Yes it seems we edit conflicted and I reverted to a poor revision, completely missing the fact that it is a fictional character. Sorry I should have been more careful there - thanks for pointing it out. Mato (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for your good work fighting those vandals. —SMALL JIM 21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mato@cs.wiki

I renamed your account Tomayres to (usurped account) Mato as requested. Enjoy contributing to cs.wikipedia. --Tchoř (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mato (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BRazil-China relations

Hi, I changed a table, but did something wrong... Can you make the tekst below come out of the table? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanHop (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire section has been removed by another editor because there were no sources. If you wish to re-add the information, you must provide references. Mato (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

More particularly, he has to add references that actually support the material. The Brazil factsheet does not do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, should have made that a bit clearer. Mato (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

And you reverted my revert of vandalism.... why?Roodog2k (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

~~Because I hate you and I love vandals~~. A quick look at my contributions would tell you that it was likely accidental. Furthermore it would tell you that I explained my mistake on Vrenator's talk page, the editor who reverted my revert. Mato (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

K Roodog2k (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

what did I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LFCBAFC (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You added unsourced information to Andrew Nicholas (see WP:CITE) and nicknames for the college principal at Barrow-in-Furness Sixth Form College, which is considered vandalism. Mato (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

Long time since I used Wiki and forgot about internal referencing! Apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icpemwebmaster (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Mato (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

it.wiki Mato

it.wiki username Mato is now available for your SUL account. Ciao, Ary29 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Mato (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Usurp in huwiki

Sorry for the late answer, renaming is done. Regards. - RepliCarter (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your help. Mato (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

ja:User:Mato usurped

Today I usurped ja:User:Mato for you at Japanese Wikipedia as per your request. Thank you for your patience. Happy editing! --Kanjy (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Mato (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Arman Cagle

Hello, Mato. You have new messages at Arman Cagle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:Jimbo Wales

This also needs to be revdeleted.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi - were you asking me to put in a request because you're not sure how to go about it? As a thread was started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Jimbo_Wales I've brought it up there. Mato (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Slp1 has fixed. Mato (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardy Amies

Hello, I work for Hardy Amies and am confused as to why you have challenged all of my contributions and removed content that belongs to the brand. Please explain how we can correct any mistakes rather than causing time consuming damage. Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Organichumous (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I tagged several of your uploads for speedy deletion because they were copyrighted images and you had uploaded them as your "own work", which shows a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's Image use policy. If you work for the company in question, I would also advise you to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, to ensure you aren't challenged on issues of neutrality. Mato (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ACC

Hello Mato, I was wondering if you were aware of IRC (Internet Relay Chat). The account creation team monitors a channel here #wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect. We use this "tool" to be alerted by a bot of incoming requests and if needed ask questions and get advice of the team or help of a tool administrator on odd or tricky request. Also we have a mailing list used to communicate with users submitting request, daily status reports and such. You may subscribe to the list here. Hope to see you around.
Mlpearc powwow 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mlpearc, I was planning on messaging you today but I see you got here first! Thanks for the advice Re: IRC - I will make sure I make that my first point of call in the future. As I wasn't on IRC last night, however, can I ask you to elaborate on your decision concerning User:Trelon2? It didn't seem to me like a situation where one could assume good faith. Mato (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking most of this morning about how to answer your question. To me AGF is a absolute constant, every request comes in with the highest AGF status (IMHO). I see every request as "create" it is only after some hard un-reputable information is found do I even think of not creating, in fact I honestly believe I have not turned down a request because of vandalism (I have not yet seen a request come in with habitual vandalism). Judging request and how to handle request come with experience, the more you do, the more confident of your decisions become. I hope this isn't rambling and of some help to you. I feel I may have not answered your direct question but, I hope it explains a small part of helping in the front line.
Mlpearc powwow 19:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's of great use. I haven't been around at ACC very long, and naturally the Guide can't cover what to do in every single situation. If the normal procedure is to assume "create" unless there's any kind of issue considered 'major' at hand (in terms of contribs), then I completely understand - and I know how to deal with similar requests in the future. I will also ensure I request for comment at IRC if I am at all unsure - and thanks for your reply and help! Mato (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Armbrust has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. 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. ^†

Thanks :) Mato (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

John Lefler

Yes, I was thinking that they might be too similar as well. I'll pick one, and leave the other. Out of curiosity, which do you prefer? 108.5.231.231 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Opps. Didn't realize it had logged me out. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC) ...or maybe your choice of which to delete is my answer...Smm201`0 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally think the picture with the guitar is better as it's less ambiguous - the picture without the guitar makes it appear as though he's only singing. Mato (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Trenzinho do Caipira

Sorry, I dont understand your explanation to keep the word trenzinho with "m". This such word doesnt exist in portuguese, even if trem have a "m" in the end. The derivation for diminutive is trenzinho, and as far I know its official, as you can see googlin in brazilian pages, or visiting the official cds which releases this piece, like in these links below: http://www.amazon.com/Bachianas-brasileiras-No-trenzinho-Caipira/dp/B000QVFVPM

http://www.submarino.com.br/produto/2/183753/cd+o+trenzinho+do+caipira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See the portuguese version of article, also with "trenzinho", as well edu lobo, gismonti version etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a note in the text saying that in the original manuscript, Villa-Lobos spelt it 'tremzinho'. I think therefore it is better to keep the title as it was written by the composer. Mato (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link and maybe put a quote in the article for this information in original manuscript? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've contacted the user who added the note and will get back to you here asap. Shouldn't be long he's an active editor here. Mato (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This need a ref note with the explanation and source, even with fundament, because all sources that I'm researching states trenzinho with N, like the portuguse word, this guy should be an villa lobos erudict, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it back to 'trenzinho' while I await a response. Mato (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See that http://www.museuvillalobos.org.br/bancodad/VLSO_1.0.pdf and search "caipira". This an official museum which keep the scores and material from villa lobos, (about the site http://www.museuvillalobos.org.br/ingles/villalob/index.htm ) and have the support of brazilian goverment and the Culture ministery. In this official catalog of villa lobos its state TRENZINHO in all ocurrencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the link above you can see links in footer for cultura.gov.br and Iphan Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_do_Patrim%C3%B4nio_Hist%C3%B3rico_e_Art%C3%ADstico_Nacional . This link in cultere ministery confirm that is a official source: http://www.cultura.gov.br/site/2009/03/05/museu-villa-lobos-2/

Also if you research in National Biblioteche archives, ( www.bnb.br ) you see trenzinho, also also if you search in all goverment pages, its comes with TRENZINHO ! For example, this page of São Paulo Orchestra: http://www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretarias/cultura/teatromunicipal/noticias/?p=7518 (all .gov.br domains are from goverment ) http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=V6Z&rls=org.mozilla%3Apt-BR%3Aofficial&q=%3A+Bachianas+Brasileiras+n%C2%BA+2+caipira+site%3Agov.br&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on man, you are trolling. " tremzhinho [sic]"?! What is that?! Search for "tremzhinho" in google, the article is the only result. Dont troll the old villa master, right?! You even doesnt know what this song is about. You dont know what a "caipira" is. No peasant and also no countryman. Lol. Wiki-en is a shame, reducing all brazilian high personages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.79.227 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you double-check who added information to an article before you go placing blame. Mato (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)