User talk:RodRabelo7

Welcome!

Hi RodRabelo7! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Source of File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

Hello, I would like to ask what is the immediate source of that (full resolution version) photo? The current source section of the file description is outdated. Thanks. SCP-2000 16:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

SCP-2000, unfortunately I'm not finding it on my browser history (apart from this link), but maybe this one is actually (and finally) the real, full version (source here)? Feel free to upload it if you wish. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have updated the description. SCP-2000 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Move notification

Hi, re: this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Requested_move_at_Talk:Gender_variance#Requested_move_12_July_2024

This is a duplicate, I'm not sure if that's intentional? Raladic already notified that project 5 days ago.

Likewise this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Requested_move_at_Talk:Transgender_hormone_therapy#Requested_move_15_July_2024_2

I notified that project 2 days ago. But please ignore if this was intentional, thanks. Void if removed (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Void if removed, I'm sorry for having done so. When looking at requested move pages, I usually ctrl-f "Note: WikiProject" to see if WikiProjects have already been notified. Since it wasn't the case, I proceeded with the notification, but apparently you had done it manually. I'll revert myself. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem, thank you for notifying all the relevant projects. I admit I've not done so before so I've overlooked the note you were looking for. I'll be aware of that in future! Void if removed (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Script?

I assume that you have a script changing uses of {{IPA-es}} to {{IPA|es}}. In each case, the edit comment is just deprecated. Any chance you could change this to something more friendly, such as IPA-es deprecated or perhaps IPA-es → IPA? Trivial I know, but please ... — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@GhostInTheMachine, of course I can. Thanks for the feedback. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

— GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Positional parameters

Hi, when converting IPA-xx templates, if they include |3=, make sure to replace it with |audio=. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog, can you give me an example where it didn't occur properly? Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

See e.g. Special:Diff/1240007970 and the subsequent fix I made. Nardog (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog, thanks for the tip. This seems to be a highly exceptional case; usually, the audio file is indeed in the third parameter. Could you inform me whether this edit of mine triggered any filter, or did you find it by chance? I'll try to pay more attention to it in the future, but I suppose only a really small percentage of pages use the IPA-xx template like this. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I noticed them because they were removed from Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations. Anyway, I've converted all uses of IPA-xx with |3= so you no longer have to account for it (in the main namespace anyway). There were about 450 of them so it was rare in the grand scheme of things, for sure. Nardog (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Renaming a page while an RM is open

You renamed the article at Charles Carroll (1865-1921) and also renamed the article at Charles de Chambrun (1827-1880) while those pages had RM discussions that were still open. I request that you please do not do this. I can understand why you think such a change is desirable, but it confuses the RM discussion and causes the article to show up in the WP:RM#Malformed requests section of WP:RM. It also tends to motivate people to change the description of the status quo ante in the RM nomination to eliminate the automated error message, which causes a misrepresentation of the RM nomination. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know articles shouldn't be renamed while a RM is still open. Sorry, it won't repeat... RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Please also note that discussions shouldn't be closed until a full 7 days has passed. You were 3 hours early at Talk:Series and parallel circuits#Requested move 23 August 2024, 9 hours early at Talk:Papa John's#Requested move 23 August 2024, and 20 hours early at Talk:Elizabeth Capell, Countess of Essex (born 1704)#Requested move 23 August 2024. Just wait for things to fall into "Elapsed Listings" or the backlog. At the final example above, you also moved the page to a different title from what was suggested in the original request, but simply explained your close as "moved". Please explain what happened when making that sort of close, or it will appear that a different move was made out of process. Dekimasuよ! 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dekimasu, in regards to the final example, two different users supported the title I moved the article to, and even the nominator agreed it was a valid option. I wasn't sure wether RMs could be closed when the consensus was already clear but the full seven days hadn't already passed. Thanks for the advice! RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem with your evaluation of the discussion (or wouldn't be if the prescribed time had passed). Just be sure to say what you did beyond "moved" in the closing statement if there is something out of the ordinary. For example, you could write simply "consensus to move the article to Elizabeth Capell, Countess of Essex (born 1704)". Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus about censoship was already reach for this case

Well, I see that there is resistance to including the categories of censorship in Brazil for the X block. However, the consensus for this has already been reached here Censorship of Twitter, and it was previously considered censorship in the case of Telegram. Both are considered to be such, and there is no reason why this one, with the same actors, should be any different, since it follows the same process, harassing companies to carry out prior censorship, imposing fines, judicially harassing company employees and then blocking access. Paraguassuu (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Paraguassuu, where's exactly the consensus you're referring to? Anyway, according to the definition in the article Internet censorship, it seems to me that this indeed falls under a case of "censorship". However, I'd suggest caution in using the term, as it can be easily misunderstood... RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The case is recent, I believe that it will invariably be included, as it is in the case of countries blocking Telegram. In any case, this is already the stance adopted in the portuguese language Wikipedia, as it should also be followed in the English one for the title, and I believe that by the end of the year this semantic issue will have been settled. It seems coherent that the same actor who has been involved in other cases of censorship and blocks and is involved in yet another block, should be added. Paraguassuu (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: consegue me ajudar melhorando o artigo? Ele está sendo votado para ser adicionado na seção Template:ITN. ArionStar (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@ArionStar, posso fazê-lo sim. É o Brazilian investigation into Elon Musk, certo? RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Exato! ArionStar (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@ArionStar, seria bom se ajudasse lá também. Aquilo certamente não é artigo de um editor só, e não me garanto levando um evento atual, com tantas informações espalhadas por aí, à categoria de "decente" para figurar na página principal. Afinal, a Wikipédia é justamente sobre esse trabalho coletivo. Consegue expandir um pouco as outras seções? RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sim, estou procurando mais fontes. Consegue adequá-las? ArionStar (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@ArionStar, a princípio você pode usar <ref></ref> entre os links para deixá-los visualizáveis na seção de References; isso já facilita o trabalho de alguns editores. A questão da formatação é mais facilmente realizada no editor visual. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

Hello, I'm Hlsci. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rumen Radev without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. Hlsci (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Varanasi

Hi, in this edit you removed a massive amount of material and broke many of the references. I have reverted the edit. Please be more careful in future. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@DuncanHill, I sincerely have no idea why this is sometimes (still rarely though) happening. I'll try to be more careful, of course. Thanks for reverting it. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well you're editing far to quickly to be able to review each edit you make. Presumably you are operating some kind of bot. Is it properly authorised? DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No bots, simply assisted edits. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You're clocking thousands of edits per hour. Such high-speed, high-volume edits, even if they're not fully automated, are still considered bot-like editing and should go through the bots approval process. It's a good idea to use a bot-flagged account for such edits. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Paul 012: Thank you for your comment. I wonder whether this is truly necessary. I am doing this because, initially, my objective was merely to replace IPA-xx with IPA|xx, which has not yet occurred, even after this discussion. According to my calculations, there should be about 5,000 transclusions left to replace, some of which must be carried out under human supervision. Thus, I can slow down the pace of my edits somewhat (four edits per minute, maybe?), if necessary, in order to avoid the bureaucracy you mentioned in this final stage of template replacement before submitting their respective deprecated versions for deletion once again. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not absolutely necessary, but there are benefits to making such edits from a bot-flagged account, such as other editors being able to mute such changes in their watchlists. In any case, such mass edits should have clearly established consensus in support before they are pursued, which I don't see from the TfD, or any of the IPA template talk pages. Where's the discussion for deprecating the language-specific IPA templates, anyway? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index a boolean value.

I have no idea what is happening, but this edit seems to have created complete havoc to the refs in the article, giving the above error message twenty-plus times over. I do not understand how or why this happens, so I have just reverted your edit for the time being. Will you please take a look? T*U (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@TU-nor, looks normal here... RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, RodRabelo7. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Dekimasuよ! 01:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Old Portuguese documents

Hi RodRabelo7, just had a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Le langaige du Bresil/archive1. Speaking of early Portuguese colonies, on an ambitious off-chance, would you happen to know of any helpful documents relating to the early history of East Timor or the city of Dili? The early Portuguese history there seems very obscure. (The best sources I have found so far are in French, but even they cannot, for example, tell me what Dili (Dilly) was before 1769. I'm pretty sure it was at least a something and had at least one Portuguese military officer there, but that's all I have found.) CMD (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CMD, thank you for the peer review of my article. I apologize for the delay in my response. First, I must admit I discovered the manuscript which is the subject of the article quite by accident, simply by browsing an article that compiled a bibliography on Old Tupi. It took me some time to find a digitized copy of the Aryon Rodrigues article used in the paper, and that led to the discovery of the article by Dalby & Hair, until I finally found the original manuscript on Gallica (and subsequently uploaded it to Commons still in 2022). It was a series of events where luck played a significant role. The complementary bibliography is more secondary, serving as a basis for contextualization and a more appropriate linguistic approach.

That said, I fear I may not be able to help you as much as I would like. Ignorantly, I know very little about East Timor; in a search on Google Scholar in Portuguese, I found articles stating the seat of the Portuguese administration until the year you mentioned, 1769, was in Lifau; afterward, someone named António José Teles de Meneses transferred it to Dili... And that's all about it, no significant mentions to primary sources as far as I can tell. I imagine with more specific questions I might be able to help by searching for something in Portuguese writings that references it, if you wish. Again, I thank you for the peer review of my article, which had been stuck for some time, and apologize for not being able to help you as much as I would like. Sincerely, RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's okay, most people know very little about East Timor, not helped by the apparent paucity of Portuguese documents from the time! The whole de Meneses story is quite the event. Just moving 1,200 people! The ambition, and frankly the imagination. I have found passing mention he intended to settle even further East but nothing more than that passing mention. He apparently liked the geographic situation of Dili and the local king was friendly, but that seems like a story that has more details somewhere. If Portuguese scholarship isn't researching it though, there is little hope it is being researched at all. CMD (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Rapid-fire unnecessary changes

Your very rapid changes to dozens or hundreds of articles and user pages to alter template calls to LGBT fiction to LGBTQ fiction are unnecessary and may be in violation of several instructions or guidelines including WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:COSMETICBOT, and WP:OWNTALK. Please stop making these changes; they are entirely unnecessary as the redirect takes care of it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I notice that in one minute, you made 27 edits of this type recently. May I ask what bot you are using? Because none of the edit summaries are tagged for AWB, so I assume it must be a different one. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides hitting my own sandbox subpages, you are also flooding my watchlist. Normally I get a few days worth of stuff but with hundreds of your edits in my watchlist, I only have a few hours’ worth. Please stop. What bot is this? Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mathglot, thanks for your message! No need to worry, I do get notifications when I receive messages on my talk page, so one is more than enough. I'd like to understand the reason behind your concern and take it as constructive criticism. So, allow me to ask you about the guideline you mentioned, NOTBROKEN. There, almost all references point to article redirects, and the text even begins with, "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles". Then, the examples are typically hyperlinks to articles: [[target|redirect]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]], etc. Additionally, there is a whole section specifically for redirects on the page, and I don't see any mention of the NOTBROKEN guideline there (actually, it seems to imply template redirects are more of a headache). Finally, I'm wondering why template redirects get replaced with their main versions during a cleanup of an article using AWB, if that's not to be done. As for COSMETICBOT, I completely understand your concerns and will make sure to stop any edits that have caused you inconvenience, and I even apologize for intruding on your user page. Regarding a supposed bot, I'd like to clarify I don't use such a thing; it's actually JWB, a tool available to all users of this encyclopedia. I hope I've addressed your concerns here and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or trouble I may have caused. I'm committed to improving as an editor and hope you can forgive me. Happy editing! Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

there is also WP:MEATBOT. Throttle your rate of edits if you are using JWB or AWB. – robertsky (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible to tweak edit summary?

Hi! I know the changes you're making and why, but the summary doesn't match here and others. POssible to add the Q? Thanks and no worries if not. Star Mississippi 13:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Star Mississippi, it was a minor typo in the edit summary that I only noticed after completing that replacement, in this specific case. I later fixed it, and no further typos happened. I apologize for the mistake... In any case, it won't happen again anywhere as I won't proceed with such edits, given the reactive responses that can be read in the section above. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Just to be clear, I had no issue with the edits, just the potentially confusing summary. Star Mississippi 01:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there consensus to delete or deprecate the redirect? If not, mass editing in this vein seems WP:COSMETICBOT. Nardog (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog my concern is with {{LGBT-stub}} → {{LGBT-stub}} when what was meant and implemented was {{LGBT-stub}} → {{LGBTQ-stub}} . I'm not sure the extent to which the RM is resolved. I have my own opinions about userspace but they're opinions and not policy so not relevant to my feedback here. Star Mississippi 03:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)