User talk:Sampayu

File copyright problem with File:Tonsilectomia.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Tonsilectomia.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

I've posted this here as well in case you don't check your Commons account often, but the primary notice is there (as that is where the image was uploaded). Please see the relevant post there...

Wulf (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that image file was solved. ►Sampayu ^msg 11:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Necklacing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Political Power: Major Forces in the Conflict|publisher=Human Rights Watch|accessdate=2008-02-18]}}</ref>
wordreference.com/pten/micro-ondas|title=micro-ondas|publisher=WordReference|accessdate=2013-07-06]}}</ref>). Journalist [[Tim Lopes]] was a notable victim.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!►Sampayu 00:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tim Lopes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!►Sampayu 00:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lopes

Thank you for your help on the Tim Lopes article. It makes a big difference. Valeu! Evenrød (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preciso da sua ajuda WikiOgro hibernando

Olá Sampayu, como fez parte da discussão de fusão dos artigos elevation e altitude na enwiki, peço que me ajude aqui na ptwiki. Acabei de traduzir o artigo Elevação e no dia seguinte já fizeram a fusão com altitude [1]. Como a pessoa que pediu a fusão é contumaz em pedir fusão de tudo o que faço a mais ou menos 6 ou 7 anos já cansei de bater boca com ele sem resultado, pois é apoiado por alguns administradores e nesse caso não adianta nem pedir bloqueio. Antecipadamente agradeço JMGM (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JMGM: Ok, já me manifestei lá. Realmente é um nonsense quererem tratar as palavras como se fossem sinônimas. Não faz sentido. Falta de conhecimento...

►Sampayu 14:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dentistry edit

Hi. I'm a US dental student, so I was just correcting flawed information as I come across it.

The information you have now is factually incorrect. Anesthesia requires special licensing, but US DDS and DMD grads are authorized to perform all dental procedures and surgeries. Few will perform advanced procedures like a BSSO or Lefort I osteotomy, but they are still legally authorized.

As for implants requiring postdoc training, that's so far off, it's a bit embarrassing to have in a wikipedia article. A cursory google search will reveal a thousand general dentists, endodontists, periodontists, prosthodontists, and oral surgeons who perform implants regularly. They are incredibly common independent of specialty.

As for citations, citing the legal standing on this would be akin to citing the fact that dentists can prescribe schedule 2 narcotics across the US - everyone in the industry knows this is the case, but I'd have to dig through 50 different state statutes to demonstrate it to you.

I don't have time for that - I have 500 pages of medical texts to get through this week, but I figured I'd help out with what is common industry knowledge. Do what you want with the page, but it's factually inaccurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.219.223 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have time to read a full set of wikipedia policies. I'm happy to work within the rules, but I was merely replacing one un-cited claim with another (accurate) one.

Everyone in medicine has to publish - I'm perfectly familiar with citations, but you also don't cite every sentence, even if you're publishing in nature or cell.

Yours was an unreasonable request for citation for two reasons: 1. To verify the legal status of the procedure would require either a chart of legal status of implants across 50 states, which does not exist -or- 50 separate citations, which is a waste of everyone's time. 2. Your current misinformation is not cited, either. At least I was replacing misinformation with correct information.

I'm trying to help you, someone who is not informed on US dentistry, to provide correct information to the public. If you want to continue contributing to the misinformation, that's your prerogative. I don't have your amount of free time, so you'll win the edit squabble, but as a wikipedia hobbyist, I would hope that your primary interest would be in accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.219.223 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There we go - I've requested citation on the current claim. Good luck.

Sure I'm adhering to it. I'm not going back and forth with you in a silly editing war on the main page even though the current uncited claim is no more adherent to wiki policy than mine was. Feel free to cite the source for the false claim, otherwise, that tag will remain. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.219.223 (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the premise - that's fine. You are arbitrarily privileging one un-cited claim over another simply because it was there first. This is a variation of the logical fallacy known as the appeal to tradition. Exchanging one un-cited claim for another un-cited claim does nothing to diminish the number of citations on the page. Think about it for a couple of days and it might sink in.

Secondly, I already explained why it would be near-impossible to provide a satisfying citation to my claim (there is no single repository for the legal status of dental procedures in all 50 states), but you didn't seem to understand that, either.

I don't expect you to be angry. I expect you to see why an uncited claim from a dental student is superior to an uncited claim from a random person on the internet, and also why all claims are not practical to cite. But alas, my expectations were not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.219.223 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Feminazi. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: Be specific: what exactly did I violate in the aforementioned policy?►Sampayu 00:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hi Sampayu! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Antifeminism several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Antifeminism, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by the huge amount of feminists editing Wikipedia and preventing antifeminists from adding legitimate content. WOW! If there's one diversity that you guys(?) don't care about is the diversity of ideas (despite of them having references to verifiable sources). This is not an encyclopedia anymore.►Sampayu 04:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Feminazi. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Accusing others of being "paid to force a single point of view in the article" is a definite WP:ASPERSION. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: I didn't accuse anyone of anything specifically: my comment was about a generic, unnamed editor. If you think that I did attack someone specifically, then you do acknowledge that such specific editor exists and did revert on-topic verifiable content (and therefore violated Wikipedia's policies and principles), because this was my preset condition for the legitimacy of the accusation made towards such generic editor.

The source that I cited describes an "inconvenient" truth. What it narrates did actually happen and this is what bothers those who reverted my edits: the truth exposed by the verifiable and reliable article that I cited.

There's no such thing as an "attack" when it comes to expressing ideas through written words in a virtual environment. I didn't harm anyone physically neither do I want/intend to, I didn't destroy anyone's patrimony neither do I want/intend to, and I'm not this kind of person, either: I'm strong about my ideas and I cite verifiable, reliable sources and use logical reasoning to back such positions up, but I'm a civilized individual, I'm not an authoritarian who uses e.g. physical force or written threats like "If you insist on posting content that I disagree with, then I'm going to block you". I didn't delete nor did I revert article edits whose content opposes my ideas: other editors did this to me, not the other way around. Who's the actual "attacker", then?

If everyone agrees about everything and revert/block different ideas, then no ideas are put to test and no adjustments, no critical thinking and no evolution is possible.

I'm sorry if anyone's feelings here are too fragile to be able to deal with strong words that contradict their mindset. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "safe emotional space" to anyone: truth matters, different views of the same topic matter. Wikipedia isn't dead because it's about to be shut down or anything like the ridiculous page that you mentioned: it's dead because its diversity of ideas is dead.►Sampayu 11:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, in this edit by you, which is addressed to me, you are of the opinion that "...like everything hijacked by post-modern neo-marxist ideologs, Wikipedia is dead. ... Enjoy your limited-thinking dictatorship. It's detached from the real world, but it's a great self-deception tool" is not a personal attack? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, there is a great deal of diversity of ideas on Wikipedia. What there is not are ideas unrelated to the subject of an article shoehorned in for ideological purposes, such as the material you attempted to add to Feminazi. Ideas of all types get a fair presentation in this encyclopedia to the extent that is reasonable, including even WP:FRINGE ideas, which are stated and then shown to be opposed to the consensus of experts on the subject. What we are not is a propaganda outlet for the personal POVs of editors who are unable to contribute without putting their own views aside, as seems to have been the case with you on occasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel attacked by words that e.g. mean what I'm not: I feel attacked by concrete actions. I added the links A Voice for Men and The Red Pill in the article Antifeminism, but such edit was reverted, even though this revert is absurd, makes no sense at all because the linked articles provide further reading and knowledge about Antifeminism. So the revert did prevent that those reading Antifeminism find out about A Voice for Men and The Red Pill, i.e. this revert is an action that produces concrete negative effect (1) on what I previously did, (2) in the article's content and (3) in how much easy access to knowledge the readers are going to have. But if I directly call you e.g. Adolf Hitler, it's just words, and if you call me Adolf Hitler, again, it's just words. I wouldn't take this as an offense unless (1) I'm indeed Adolf Hitler and (2) I think that it's terrible to be Adolf Hitler. Are you (1) a post-modern neo-marxist and do you (2) believe that being a post-modern neo-marxist is terrible? If you are and if you do, then it makes sense to take this as an "attack", even though it simultaneously acknowledges that my "accusation" is factually correct.

What happened in Feminazi was: the article pretty much states that the person who created the word Feminazi didn't intend to refer to Nazism in a literal way. Because of this, people like you think or pretend to think that such term must stay frozen in time with such meaning, and the article is not allowed to feature any content that conflates Feminazi with Nazism. This type of behavior on your part and on the part of the other 2 individuals who joined you to revert my edits is a clear sign that even though Feminazi is a popular term and people using it do conflate it with Nazism (this word is used because as Nazis used the Holocaust to segregate Jews, the so-called Feminazis want to segregate men), an essay written by academics, full of empirical data about actual feminists in a respected feminist journal accepting an article that looks feminist but is actually an entire chapter of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, no no no, this empirical data showing actual feminists accepting Nazi content can not be added to Feminazi, it's got nothing to do with it... Facepalm ►Sampayu 09:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the Affilia feminists accepted Nazi content that argues favorably towards the segregation of men, i.e. a "societal Holocaust of men". This is one of the conclusions demonstrated in the article that I cited but was reverted / removed.

If this type of content is considered completely unrelated with Feminazi, just because it's not identical to the canonical meaning of the word (i.e. to the original meaning of the word when it was created back in 1989), then Feminazi is a very poor, low-quality article that's stuck in the 1980s and completely ignores the evolution of language and its words. And this is exactly what happened: I was prevented to add content that is a consequence of the dynamic evolution of language and a fact-based testimony that some feminist do sympathize with Nazi ideas.►Sampayu 09:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway: worry not. I'm replying to comments in here, but I won't touch the articles again. You got rid of me. Enjoy.►Sampayu 10:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature and linter errors

Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to ►[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Sampayu}}Sampayu] ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. See WP:SIGFONT for more info.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheep8144402: Hey, thanks for letting me know.

Like I replaced the source-code and it looks good. ►Sampayu 18:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]