User talk:Opinoso

/Archive 1

OPINOSOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOO!!!

OPINOSOOOOO!!!

Unsourced information...

You wrote this in my talk page:

Moreover, once again: personal theories are not allowed at Wikipedia. When you change correct informations to incorrect ones, like this [3], another disruption. Plase, read carefully all the rules of Wikipedia, before posting. Opinoso (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that this has nothing to do with any personal theory of my part. Nor did I remove any information. I merely added a Fact Tag to a piece of unsourced information. If it is true that most settlers in Brazil "jumped ship to live among the Indians", which is possible, then it should not be difficult to find sources for that information. User:Ninguém 18:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

Please notice I have filed a complaint about your latest personal attacks [1] against me. User:Ninguém 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am composing this stern warning for both of you at this point, as we've already visited these issues in ANI in the past. Opinoso, I've recommended that User:Ninguém bring his concerns before the WP:3O peers, for 3rd party opinion. Hopefully, this will help put to rest any content disputes that are ongoing at White Brazilian. In the meantime, I would remind you to;

• Remain civil,
• Assume good faith,
• Avoid personal attacks.

Something that you might want to also do at this point is apologize for any misconceptions or slights that have been issued or perceived. I'm not saying that either party is guilty of this (far be it from me to be judge and jury, too many hats!), nor am I saying that you have to apologize to make this work, but it would aid in promoting the process. Edit Centric (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Opinoso. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

calling edits vandalism

You're being talked about at ANI. The meaning of vandalism on en.Wikipedia is narrow. Please don't call cited, good faith edits vandalism. It's true that sometimes, if the PoV of an edit is far from your own, is cited to an unreliable source or mistakenly cited to a reliable one, it may seem like vandalism to you, but unless the edit is straightforwardly meant to harm the project, it may indeed be astray of many policies and guidelines, but it's not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you are both straying from policy.

• Don't make personal attacks.
• Don't remove or change other editors' posts from talk pages
• Don't call good faith edits vandalism.
• Don't try to own a page.
• You may not agree with all reliable sources, but WP:V has sway here.
• Edit by consensus.

Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"It's not a serious user" may sound ok when translated back into Portugese but in English, on en.Wikipedia, it could easily be taken as a personal attack. Please stop that. If you're the only user other than User:Ninguém editing the article, then your edits have no consensus over his. I have yet to say anything at all so far about the content, only your behaviour and his. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Languages of Brazil

According to you Spanish is not an "unofficial" language of Brazil. However, the article clearly states that it is spoken in the regions boarding Argentina and Paraguay.Mitch1981 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification

There's a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Changing_content_on_other_people.27s_Talk_Page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

what is vandalism?

Hi Opinoso, I've told you about this before, see above, so if you've already stopped doing this, please forgive me. edits like this are not vandalism They may be original research, unsourced or wrong, they may be disruptive or tendentious, they may look like vandalism to you and you may think they should be called vandalism, but they are made in good faith and hence are not vandalism on en.Wikipedia (please read this blue link if you haven't already done). Calling an edit vandalism when it is not can be taken as a personal attack, no matter how unhelpful that edit may otherwise be. If you have questions about this, please ask me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Please don't edit war at White Brazilian. Moreover, you're making comments about the editor, rather than writing only about content and sources. These comments could be taken as personal attacks, which aren't allowed. Please use the article talk page to discuss content with the editor. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi Opinoso. Many of your recent edits have lacked edit summaries. These are easy to provide and very helpful. They're particularly important when you're editing an article over which there's a disagreement. As you know, many of your recent edits have been to such articles. Please provide edit summaries, as these not only help people understand what you are doing but also show how helpfully informative you are trying to me. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

Opinoso, you're still edit warring at German Brazilian and White Brazilian. Please stop that. Rather, talk about the content on the article talk pages, or find a new way to deal with the content, don't revert, you've done that far too much already and it's not helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

yet more edit warring

This edit of yours is bizarre. There is no blanket rule against removal of factual, sourced information. And this information, while it may be factually correct, isn't even sourced. The relevant section of the article starts by referring the reader to Riograndenser Hunsrückisch for more information; this section of an article on a dialect of German certainly does not benefit from asides about Brazilian society, education policy, etc.

The last time I encountered you was on 30 May, when you and User:Ninguém were edit warring at German Brazilian. Because of this, the following day I constructed one sandbox for you and one for him. He has used his. You have studiously ignored yours. I also wrote: I shall take a particularly dim view of any potentially controversial edit to an article on any ethnic group in Brazil (or any other closely related matter) as long as this article is protected. After a few days of lying low, this is just what you seem to be doing.

Edit wars are a waste of time and resources. So stop edit warring. And either edit your sandbox at Talk:German Brazilian, or provide a persuasive explanation there of why you are not doing so.

Alternatively, keep on going the way you are going now, and look forward to being blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Moroever, as you have been told many times before, don't comment on the editor, only on content and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian People

It does not matter what you think. If you keep on this war edits, I will report you. Was I clear? - --Lecen (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I try to be patient... let´s go... First of all, it was I who uploaded the picture as you can see on Commons (almost all 19th Century Brazilian Pictures I was the one who uploaded) and the book says she is a mulatto ("Mulata"). Second of all, all three pictures are merely illustrative. I don´t know who you are and I don´t care. I believe you are one of those "Ethnic Cops" who wander around Wikipedia seeing racism everywhere. If there was the picture of a white girl first, it´s racism! If a woman is called "mulatto" (as she has White facial traces) it´s racism! I don´t care. But I will if you keep messing around the articles. - --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder myself why you complain so much about the image of a white girl and later about the picture of a brown woman. You didn´t ask for sources for the other images I´ve posted. I´ve seen that you have something against white people and is too over-protecting about anything related to black people. Anyway, the article is not yours and you can´t erase an information because the book is not available on-line. If that was the case, no article on wikipedia could be verifiable. And call an administrator. Because if you don´t, I do it myself. - --Lecen (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

hey

Hi Opinoso, this was not vandalism at all (not bad faith, not meant to harm). Also, I suggested he do this on any talk page, if he wanted to: Your understanding and patience would be very much appreciated. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

My God! So, if someone tries to change something in an article, it needs first to tell it in the talk page. However, you, and only you, can do whatever you want including starting an edit war in another article? I don´t remember that you used your rule in the article "Brazilian people". Be careful, there are too many complaining about you in here. - --Lecen (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven´t done any "personal attacks" against you. Try at least to be coherent if possible. And there is no "work from somebody else". Once you write into Wikipedia, anyone can change it. That article is NOT yours. Try to understand that once and for all. But I dont´care, the article it´s horrible, just like the other one about the Brazilian People. Both deserved to be great, but now I know why they are so bad. Keep going with the good work! - --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

blocked

I've warned you time and again not to call good faith edits vandalism. Doing so is a personal attack, for which I have blocked you 24 hours. Please have another look at WP:Vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

After further review, I've lengthened this block to 48 hours owing to edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What a curious block. I restored the original sources about those figures because somebody recently replaced them with sources that do not even talk about those figures (and are not reliable, because it's from a site writen by unknown columnists).

And I included the source about the 3 million Portuguese in São Paulo, because the user "Ninguém" included a "fact tag" there. Curiously, the user "Ninguém" reverted the original sources I included. Then, he's the one who started the edit-warring.

Isn't "vandalism" to reverte an user that replaced a "fact tag" with a source and restored the original sources that have been there since a long time, but somebody replaced them? I gave the source about the Portuguese, and "Ninguém" replace the source once again with a "fact tag" and he also reverted to the "new" sources which are from a not reliable site, including the one about the Portuguese which do not even talk about the figure.

I included the source which does talk about 3 million Portuguese and it was reverted by "Ninguém" without any explaination. Isn't vandalism to erase a source and replace it with a "fact tag"? Is it a "good fatih edit"? If this is not vandalism, if it's a normal good faith edit to erase sources and replace them with fact tags, please tell me. Opinoso (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits, made by an editor who thinks they're helpful, even those which you think look crazy or harmful, aren't vandalism (I've told you this many times). They may be wrong, unsupported, disruptive, whatever, but they're not vandalism. Calling them vandalism is a wanton personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To erase a souce and to replace it with a "fact tag" is not to "think an edit is helpful". The only definition is "vandalism". "Ninguém" is a not a new user, he does know very well what he is doing in Wikipedia. He knows very well that I posted a source that gives the 3 million figure, and there was no reason to reverte my edit, unless he was trying to rise another disruption, as usual. And also, he is able to know very well that a site with articles writen by known columnist is a not a reliable source, because he is the one always claiming other users to only use "reliable sources". There's nobody innocent there. Opinoso (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. It may be mistaken, it may be disruptive, but it's not vandalism, which is narrowly defined on en.Wikipedia. I've told you and warned you about this many times before. If, after your block is up, you call more good faith edits "vandalism," the next block will be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If to call "vandalism" an edit of another user who erases sources deserves a 48 hours block, while the user who replaced a source with a fact tag and replaced reliable sources with a site of unknown columnists does not even deserve a "warning" then it's, at least, contradictory. Funny, because these "good faith mistakes" of "Ninguém" only happens when there are figures about Italians, or Germans or other non-Portuguese people involved. Also, these "good faith mistakes" only happens in articles or sessions that I posted. Maybe this is a simple coincidence, with millions of articles in Wikipedia, and only in articles I post it happends. Maybe he's not following my edits, it must be a miraculous coincidence that he only posts where I post. Opinoso (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you 24 hours for the personal attack (after so many warnings) and another 24 hours for edit warring. I've blocked the other editor 24 hours for edit warring. If you two can't get along, stay away from each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I try as much as I can to be away from the other user, but he follows my edits. I have been out of Wikipedia for some days (and, like another miraculous coincidence, the other user also appered to have been rarely posting in Wikipedia while I was not posting).

The day I returned, the first edit I made in Afro-Brazilian, almost immediatly user "Ninguém" also posted there.[2] It's clear he's speding hours a day waiting a post from me, so that he can immediatly post after me. 90% of "Ninguém"s posts are exclusive to articles I posted recently. The informations in the São Paulo articles, I was the one who posted them (and he knows it) but somebody changed the sources recently, and I did not notice it. I restored the original, "Ninguém" reverted and then I got blocked because of this.

It only can be a miraculous coincidence that he only posts where I post. If it's not a miracle, then it's a case of an user following the edits of another one. Once again, I try not to post where the other user post, but the contrary does not happen (he only edits where I edit, and the days I was out of Wikipedia, he almost did not post here too). Miraculous coincidence or is somebody following my edits, waiting for an opportunity to rise disruptions? Opinoso (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't like your edits. When you make them, he reverts them. I've blocked him for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm neutral and all my edits are sourced. I'm not pro-Italian, or pro-Portuguese or pro any ethnic group. That's the big difference here. His problem with me started when I saw he was trying to give Portuguese a greater importance for Brazil than they really had, based on his personal theories. He even claimed almost all Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, because almost all Brazilians have Portuguese last names. This is insane, because as a colony of Portugal, everybody here received Portuguese surnames, the Indians and the Africans. People from Haiti have French surnames, even though 99% are Blacks.

Then he said his grandparents were of "colonial Portuguese descent". Then I understood why he was trying to inflate the Portuguese influence in Brazil. He cannot admit that the Portuguese influence in Brazil was not as great as he was trying to sell. Brazil is a multiracial country, not a copy of Portugal as the other user wanted to be in the article White Brazilian. Notice that he deslikes Darcy Ribeiro one of the great Braizlian anthropologists. Maybe because Ribeiro shows a multi-ethnic and diverse (and real) Brazil, very different from a copy of Portugal or Europe like some people wish it was.

This is from where his problems with me started. Since them he's been following my edits.

I even stopped editing in White Brazilian, German Brazilian and other articles he was trying to rise discussions and edit-warrings. Unfortunately he keeps following me in other articles. The large difference here is that I do contribute for Wikipedia against vandals and I write big (sourced) texts in several articles, even though last months my contrubutions are being impaired because every week Ninguém forceds me to be engaged in problems with him, even though I try to escape from these problems, sometimes he makes it impossible.

You should, please, tell the other user that there are millions of articles in Wikipedia, and I do not need another user to follow my edits. Also tell him to use sources like me and to be neutral (this is basic), and that I won't follow his edits or even check his contributions page, like he does with me, because I have other things to do. Tell him to leave me alone, and everything is gonna work quite well here. Opinoso (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's easy, don't edit war. Don't call good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And what about the other user only editing where I edit? That's the main problem. Opinoso (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First, the edit warring stops and you stop calling good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On Darcy Ribeiro and figures for incoming Portuguese during the colonial period

In White Brazilian, this edit [3] introduced Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro as a source for this information:

"According to Darcy Ribeiro before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled in Brazil <ref>Darcy Ribeiro. O Povo Brasileiro, Vol. 07, 1997 (1997).</ref>."

Unhappily, I know of no edition of O Povo Brasileiro in 7 or more volumes. Here is the best visualisation I could find of it online:

[4]

I have searched it many times. I haven't found the information purported in the article there. Is it possible to ask for a page, a chapter, a quote, that points to that information? Ninguém (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Brasília

Do you know how to read in Portuguese? I don't understand why you changed a referenced material from the Brasília article. The source clearly states that the HDI for Brasília is 0.936. The article is about Brasília and not the Federal District (it has its own separate article). Limongi (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing happened to me

I swear! Thanks for you concern, though. I tend to disappear each year about this time. It's not even a planned thing, just kind of a strange coincidence, as each time I've felt that I should dedicate more time to other facets of my life or other work I'm doing off-WP. This time it happened gradually: it was only supposed to be for a few days, with me returning on a more limited schedule within the week. But it didn't work out that way.

I'll stick around for a few days, at least. I'll do my best not to lose contact for such extended periods of time thereafter. SamEV (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oi!

Dá uma olhadinha aqui, por favor? Brigadão. --Mocu (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Italians Sao Paulo.jpg

File:Italians Sao Paulo.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Italians Sao Paulo.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Italians Sao Paulo.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Opinoso

It's nice to know that you continue to contribute to the Wikipedia, although in the English Wikipedia. We missed you in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I hope we can continue our collaboration in topics related to Brazilian population. You unbiased and wise opinion was always highly respected. I am also very happy to see the imagens of Nilo Peçanha and the Chachá of Uidá among the African Brazilians, altough I am not completely sure that they could be classified in this group (but the people of their times told otherwise). Now I know the old and beautiful city of Quissamã. I would upload some photos of this city, but I'd lost my camera in a dreadful accident. See you soon.

Z.v.P. ^{Toc toc!} at 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are one revert away from violating WP:3RR in Brazil, which can lead to a block.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brazil. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Atama頭 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Your recent edits to Brazil are being discussed on Talk:Brazil#Biased_information_by_user_Opinoso. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Caro Opinoso, sei que tivemos nossas diferenças no passado, mas acho que é desnecessário ambos persistirem no erro. Seriamos muito mais úteis para os artigos se conseguíssemos colaborar um com o outro do que perder tempo em discussões infindáveis que não levarão a nada. Eu realmente quero terminar de escrever os demais textos sobre o período republicano, para que fiquem tão ricos em informações quanto os outros e que assim aja uma aparente constancia em toda a seção sobre a história do Brasil. Acredito que você viu que retirei ontem várias frases do meu texto, de acordo com suas reclamações. Pedi a opinião de outros editores e fiz novas modificações no texto, retirando mais frases que escrevi. Também disponibilizei um "see also" com ligação direta para o artigo sobre a escravidão no Brasil, assim, os interessados em saberem mais sobre a instituição, poderão dar uma olhada lá. A idéia é deixar a seção sobre o reinado de Pedro II pequena, simples e direta como as demais. Dê uma lida, acredito que agora pode agradar a gregos e troianos. Peço que antes que realize alguma modificação, converse comigo antes, para chegarmos a um acordo. - --Lecen (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict on Brazil

After the last edits of User:Opinoso on this article I felt the situation has gone out of hand, and I have posted on an admin noticeboard to ask for admin intervention. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion or rewrite request

I formated some of the text in your !vote as strikeout. Has Lencen said he has this admiration? Are you a mindreader? If not, please voluntarily delete the text, or rewrite it.
You can, of course, delete the strikeout tags I added. It's your writing, but I don't want you two to be at each other's throats when Lencen gets back. If s/he responds in kind, and starts impugning motives to you, it may make consensus considerably more difficult, harming our attempts to improve the encyclopedia. -- Rico 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Check this out

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brazil#Why_Lecen_improved_the_older_history_text. Rico 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -- Rico 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

For falsly accusing User:Lecen of edit-warring and uncivility on Brazil in this post and this one.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you've been blocked far too often for this kind of thing before. If it starts up again, the next block will be a long one. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Conflict Source " Darcy Ribeiro "

Hi, Where is the page to verify your information?. It is good to add information that you know will be reversed only to encourage the 3RR and blocking other users.--Kusamanic (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Thank you very much! We will continue to make this article grow! Auréola (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

I sympathize with your comments on race and skin color in Brazil. If you can find this book, it may be a useful reference for you in discussion and work on the article: John Norvell (an anthropologist) has an article in the book Border Crossings ed. by Kathy Fine-Dare and S. Rubenstein, in which he argues that Brazil is best thought of us a "pigmentocracy" rather than as either a racial democracy or a racist society. His essay is about the confusion that hapens when pople in the US try to use Brazil as a case study to make points about race. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not really my own expertise so I don't have much to offer the article discussion, but from your comments I think you would like Norvell's essay and you may be able to use it as a reliable source to support your views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

pages 3-33 Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. It is a general attempt to summarize the current debates going on concerning race in the US and Brazil. If it is a good essay it will refer to all the major works, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RE

He is accusing us of that because there is more than one person interested in doing a good article, as he is only interested in preventing it... Hehe. Auréola (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, do you have MSN? Passa pra mim! Auréola (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding false information

Ribeiro classifies Chile as new people (mestizo) and not testimony people as you have been claming in all articles about the ethonography of Chile.

You seem obsessed with this subject , you've gone as far as adding that (mis)information into the lead AND body of the article Chilean people. Please stop. That behavior can get you reported for tendentious editing and ultimately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Likeminas (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Yes I saw the talk page and that’s precisely why you need to stop.

The “book” you’re presenting not only contradicts scientific studies (after all Ribeiro’s statements are nothing but his personal opinion), it cannot be easily verified and you’re putting it right there in the lead where actual studies (not simply opinion) are given the appropriate weight. Please stop this tendentious editing as you might get reported if you continue. Likeminas (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Use the talk page of the article, not mine. Likeminas (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning on Original research and POV pushing

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Likeminas (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning on edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert ruleprohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Likeminas (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring at Chilean people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you carry on with edit warring and disruptive behaviour on these topics, the block lengths will fast lengthen to indefinite. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:

beleza! Ficarei no aguardo. Abs, Auréola (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"White Brazilians": let's get moving quickly

Opinoso, please respond to my open message to you as quickly as you can. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Miranda

If you're still interested in the Carmen Miranda question, there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-29/Carmen Miranda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Hi! If you want to help me keep the editions of sub-section "Culture" in the article Brazil (as they were like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=324617070), I thank you. Auréola (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I ask User:Ninguém to help me in reduce the size of the texts. Can you help us? Thank you. Auréola (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotients, etc

Hello Opinoso. There is a question for you at Talk:Arab Brazilian. I hope that you will answer it promptly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion you asked for

At 12:51, in 24 February 2010, you reverted an edit in the article Race in Brazil, stating that a discussion would be necessary. I have started the discussion, showing how and why your insistence in placing material about the relation between race and social class in the section about "miscegenation" is wrong. Can you please go to the Talk Page of that article, and explain why do you think it is correct? Ninguém (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

an obsession

Hello Opinoso. Ninguém draws my attention to this edit of yours. Putting aside for a moment the question of the relative merits of the two versions, yours and his, I'd like to ask you about your edit summary, Re-posting sourced information that was removed and replaced by imaginary "Portuguese" theory (what a ridiculous Portuguese obssession). More precisely, I'd like to ask you about one part of it. Are you implying here that Ninguém suffers from a ridiculous Portuguese obsession? -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

selling a personal opinion

Here's another edit I'd like to ask you about. You say that a table edited by Ninguém is only trying to sell the personal opinion of an user who thinks that every non-Portuguese influence in Brazil is "exaggerate". If I understand you correctly here, you are saying that:

1. Ninguém thinks that every non-Portuguese influence in Brazil is exaggerated.
2. Ninguém adds elements to Wikipedia articles merely in order to sell his personal opinions.

Now, perhaps I understand what you are saying, perhaps I don't, and perhaps I half understand. If I understand correctly, you are making a serious charge in the second of these. If you're serious about it, it should be looked into (and by somebody other than myself). Please post it, briefly and clearly, at WP:AN/I. Somebody will look into it, and perhaps censure Ninguém and thank you for drawing their attention to this misuse by Ninguém of editing privileges. On the other hand, perhaps you don't mean what you say -- sleepiness, anger, etc may have led you to misphrase yourself. If this is so, you'd better make a clarification. Because, as you must surely understand by now, WP has a general rule against personal attacks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Too busy?

Opinoso, you posted an alert at "Wikiquette alerts" about somebody else's edits about 21 hours after I had posted the questions above asking for clarifications. Within those 21 hours, you also found time to edit three other articles but not to respond here. You are of course perfectly within your rights to ignore anybody's questions, but you should know that evasiveness does nothing to help your credibility when you complain elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely not too busy

I see that you're back and editing (e.g. here).

Right then. Please look at a section above this on this talk page. Do you or do you not say that Ninguém adds elements to Wikipedia articles merely in order to sell his personal opinions? If you do, please elaborate. If you do not, please say so clearly. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reply

Here's your reply.

It's really feeble stuff. Here's an example:

He already claimed to be of "colonial Portuguese descent" and even used a strange expression (pêlo-duro, something like "hard animal hair" because pêlo means animal hair and duro hard in Portuguese). I never heard about that "pêlo-duro" expression. It seems an internal expression used to describe people of colonial Portuguese ancestry. / I tried to find when he posted that, but I could not find it, I think it was removed for some reason...

How about using the search function? I did, and I found it (or one example of it) here. The section in question reads (after markup-stripping):

Second, Brazilians certainly make a big difference between Portuguese immigrants and their descent (“Galegos”, “Portugas”, “Lusos”, “Tugas”, “Lusitanos”), who are often victims of prejudice, and the usual target of Brazilian “Polish Jokes”, and people descended from the colonial settlers (“Pelos-duros”).

So the context is a description of ethnic slurs and prejudice. The content is possibly mistaken (I'm not qualified to judge), but the writing is innocuous.

You say: Do you know what I mean? I'm clear.

You clearly avoid giving a straight question to the simple question I asked you above: whether or not you claim "Ninguém adds elements to Wikipedia articles merely in order to sell his personal opinions." That evasion, coupled with such childish non sequiturs -- at their most obvious within User Ninguém said he has no "proud" of being of "Portuguese ancestry". He should, because Portugal is a nice country and I'm proud of my Portuguese ancestry. -- suggests to me that adult discussion is wasted on you. I suppose you'll just continue in your usual fashion until you step too far and are awarded your tenth block. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinoso, I am still interested in knowing whether you think I edit Wikipedia with the purpose of making false statements about the relative influence of Portuguese colonists compared to immigrants of other nationalities in Brazilian demographic composition. The examples you gave in your "answer" seem misplaced; most of them are sourced informations, others are removal of unsourced or mis-sourced misinformation. So, do you think I am "obsessed" with Portugal/the Portuguese, or not? Do you think that my edits in Wikipedia reflect such "obsession"? Do you believe that my edits are harmful to the "project" because of that? Ninguém (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Azores Rio Grande do Sul

Where did he bring the Portuguese from? Nobody knows Opinoso

They came from the Azores mainly, Azorean couples were settled in Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Maranhão (border areas) by the Portuguese. A few Southerners of Azorean ancestry: Anita Garibaldi (she married Giuseppe Garibaldi), Getúlio Vargas (former president of Brazil), João Goulart (former president of Brazil), Irineu Evangelista the Baron of Mauá (Azorean grandparents), Érico Veríssimo (famous writer from Rio Grande do Sul) and Luís Carlos Prestes (communist leader). Read about it. There are tons of books about it. Thousands of settlers (couples) were placed in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. That area was of strategic importance for the Portuguese Crown.

http://www.comunidadesacorianas.org/artigo.php?id_artigo=3&idioma=PT http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/17918 http://www.ivoladislau.com/pesquisas_acoriana_a_vinda_dos_acorianos.htm

Grenzer22 (talk) autosigned, comment added 16:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

Genetics of skin colour

Welcome back, Opinoso.

In Talk:Rio Grande do Sul, you have made this statement:

when you mix White with Black and Amerindians, the physical type of the latter two predominate.

I have asked you to point me to some biology textbook that explains it. Can you please do that, since you are back? Ninguém (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Spanish Brazilian

Thanks!

Good luck dealing with him! It's an ... interesting experience. :) SamEV (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

the terrible administrator Hoary

In response to this cri de cœur of yours:

Opinoso, please feel free to move to have me "topic-banned" from south American–related matters. Or at the very least to have me censured for abuse of administrative privileges (or whatever they're called). Really, go ahead. After all, you are, or claim to be, so very certain of my nefarious motivation and its ill effects. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This was archived here before any action was taken and indeed before any real discussion had started. I shan't have any qualms about restarting it at any point where doing so seems a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinoso, stop making comments of any kind about other editors. You've been both warned and blocked for this many times before. If it happens again, you may be blocked from editing again and the block may not be short. By far the easiest way to keep from being blocked again for personal attacks is to only talk about sources and how to echo them in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why I reverted your last edit in André Rebouças

Hello, my dear and friendly Opinoso. Good to see that you are still alive and romaing around Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your last edit in André Rebouças. Why? Let's see it: 1) His father was a Brazilian born black named Antonio Rebouças, who not only was a close frined of José Bonifácio de Andrada, but who also had a long and prosperous career as a national deputy. Also, and this is one very important info, he was a hero of Brazilian independence in Bahia (and no, I am not surprised that you don't know that). 2) Few Afro-Brazilians known in the 19th century? Do you really want to name a few dozen? 3) You've erased Pedro II from the text. Why?

Anyway, have a good day! --Lecen (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't falsely label others' edits as vandalism, please

Please don't make any other edits like this. A good read of WP:VAND will let you see where you are going wrong. Let me know if you need clarification of this. To be clear, this is an official warning. --John (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

blocked September 2010

You've been blocked many times for personal attacks and edit warring. This post was far beyond the pale. It was not only a straightforward personal attack, but many editors would see this as race baiting. As you've been told before, do not comment on other editors but rather, on sources and how to echo them in article text. This block is not about content or your outlook on the topic area. Neutral, meaningful and reliable sources about this can sometimes be hard to find and agree upon. Lots of folks have sundry outlooks on race, ethnic background and so on. These outlooks stir up all kinds of feelings, which makes the topic area even harder to deal with.

The worry here, as ever, has to do with how you have been going about putting forth your outlook on article content, rather than the content itself. Your behaviour has been harmful to the kind of open editing done through consensus on this website. Please keep in mind, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This means, if need be, an article can even carry sundry outlooks on a topic. You cannot skirt this. You won't get what you want here by making personal attacks. If, when your two week block is up, you make another personal attack, much less one which even hints at race or ethnicity, the next block will be much longer and perhaps of indefinite length.

I also see that you have gone back to calling good faith edits vandalism. You have been told not to do this many times. No good faith edit, even if mistaken and unhelpful, is vandalism. If you do that again, you will be blocked for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks and harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Chico Buarque fala sobre racismo

Ah, sêo Chico... quer dizer então que o problema com o racismo da senhora é que ela não é uma branca "de verdade"?

Agora, deixa eu te explicar, nhô Chico, por que é que tu é branco. É porque tu entra nas boates que eu não entro, porque tu consegue os empregos que eu não consigo. Porque quando tu dirige, ninguém pensa que tu é o motorista ou o ladrão. Porque ninguém te manda pegar o elevador de serviço. Porque a polícia te chama de "dotô" e te deixa passar, e não te manda encostar no muro e levantar os braços.

É isso, sêo Chico, que é ser branco no Brasil. Pode ser que tu não passe no teste do Dr. Mengele, e pode ser que tu não seja branco na Holanda ou nos States. Mas aqui tu é branco, e fazer de conta que não é não ajuda em nada a quem de fato é negro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.18.41.205 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Italianos.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Italianos.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

O que você tem contra os Brasileiros de origem Alemã?

http://www.dw.de/brasil-alem%C3%A3o-comemora-180-anos/a-1274817 "Já o jornalista e historiador Dieter Böhnke, de São Paulo, relativiza essa data, afirmando que os primeiros alemães desembarcaram em 1500, entre eles o cozinheiro de Pedro Álvares de Cabral. Segundo ele, mais de 10% da atual população brasileira tem pelo menos um antepassado alemão. Parece muito, mas é pouco, se comparado aos 43 milhões de norte-americanos (15,2% da população dos EUA) que dizem ter pelo menos um ascendente germânico, formando o maior grupo étnico do país. "No Brasil, esses números são bem menores, mas sem a sua contribuição é impossível entender a história, cultura e identidade brasileira", conclui"

Toda hora que alguém coloca o número correto de Brasileros de ascedência alemã (18 milhões), o Sr. logo edita e coloca um número completamente fora da realidade e sem base alguma. Você deveria ser banido da Wikipedia, é só mais um troll. Caso continue com seus atos de vandalismo, darei um jeito de fazer que você suma daqui! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuser777 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!