User talk:Rsazevedo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cenarruza-Puebla de Bolívar

Sorry for the speedy tag. Do you know if this town has two official names, one in Basque and one in Spanish or is its only official name the Basque version? -Yupik 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Yupik 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Is your use of cloyster a dialectal thing? Cloyster AFAIK is a Pokemón character, whereas cloister is claustro in English. -Yupik 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Safer to ask since English is so widespread :) -Yupik 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Palaio.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palaio.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Martial

It was not me, I left my account logged on at school —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleglanville@hotmail.com (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Mohammed bin Osama bin Laden

I have nominated Mohammed bin Osama bin Laden, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed bin Osama bin Laden. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dionysus

You have to add a source that D. "was the Thracian god of wine etc".

(As you can read further down, Dionysus was worshiped by Greeks since the Mycenaean times.) 62.103.147.55 (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about them edits

thanks for the feedback on the Ron Wood page - i do use the preview gizmo, but a] when the error is a faulty reference it's not visible in the preview if i'm editing just one section; and b] another editor advised me to make changes incrementally. i'll try to find some kind of happy medium. Sssoul (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inserting links to my page

Hey!

Look, what I was doing was that I was trying to make it possible so that people could get to the source of the poem easily! Darn it! I am really mad at what you just did! It took a while to do that and it was useful. (If I had been using the page it would have been useful to me.) It made the task of finding the poem easy, that's all! I did not know where the poem was on Wikisource, or whatever, and I was just doing a quick fix, and if you had somehow linked to Wikisoure that would have been great, but instead you just deleted!

I didn't take credit for anything, I was merely using (bureaucraticly incorrectly, I know,) my userspace for the good of Wikipedia!

Please, if you don't have the time to make the 'pedia better, why make it worse for no reason by now deleting the thing I did to find Martial poems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David G Brault (talk • contribs) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, look. I don't know why I am writing this message, but I am. It is a waste of my time and yours for me to be writing this message, but I am still writing it, and I'm sorry. But Argh! Look at what you have just done: you have changed

Book VIII, No. 14. 5-6.

to

Book VIII, No. 14. 5-6.

and given me a lecture on doing it wrong. What is the big deal! They both work!

The point is to work!

Even linking to my own page worked for the function!

Why do you care so much about formats? Really! I mean, why don't you just fix it if you care so much, but you are making it like I would to better not to post, I think. But I took some time to do it, and it was helping. It clearly was helping. You can't say it wasn't helping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David G Brault (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry. I didn't know the proper way to do it. Now I know. I got frustrated because of what I see as a general, negative trend on Wikipedia for formatting types to simply delete improperly formatted information, not to just put it into the proper format. (even my first version was proper information, improper format. It was as useful as the link up now.) Even if this takes a little bit extra of your time, I think it would have been cool of you if you could have seen my lame attempt, seen what I was trying to do, and then put it proper. (You say the edit was totally pointless, but I really disagree on that one. I really do. It would have helped me much. How? By making my Wiki reading experience more effortless and pleasant. That's what internal links are for. It really makes a difference to have them. I love clicking on a well placed link).

David G Brault (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (Are you happy that I am signing right? I do know how to do this. Really, why do you care if I sign or if the robot does it? It is just a pet peeve of yours, you must recognise this. When somebody (who signs wrong) is bothering you you just add "And you sign your posts wrong!"

[edit] ?

Care to explain why?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Figured that much. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Turns out the section (which used to have some more detailed comments) got moved away to WP:CONTEXT: "As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages [year/decades/centuries etc.] only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." I left the date for the start of the Spanish colonization as it does provide very useful contexts, but the publication years did not really provide useful context (e.g. the random reader did not have a reason to expect or desire a link there; I regularly add links—rarely date links, though—to other pages when they are lacking and I would expect one to show up there).

A rule of thumb that was once suggested was that the link is only pertinent if the event is actually mentioned on the page, but I think that a bit over-restrictive. Does that make more sense? In a different angle, it is usually felt that single year links should be used sparsely because they otherwise reduce the overall effectiveness of bluelinks in general, and of year links specifically (a solution is still sought for date links, the issue being discussed at MOSDATE). Circeus (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Fisk article

Hi, To avoid an edit war, can we take the Fisk-critics thing to the talk pages? PiCo (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] juninho page

look at the end of the page the article says clearly that juninho it has marked 88 goal (“but” in French) modernized 7 to March 2008 http://www.espnsoccernet.fr/news/story?id=514288 but juninho in 23 March 2008 has marked the 89 goals for lyon look that http://www.olweb.fr/index.php?lng=fr&m=933&pid=105001 --Babboleolr (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

hey!!! what are you doing! look this is the real references from the official site with 90 goal (but) in french and 37 freeekicks scored at lyon! http://www.olweb.fr/index.php?lng=fr&a=39367&pid=101002

--Babboleolr (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ok adesso ho capito...se guardi nella pagina vedrai che ho cambiato e ho inserito il giusto nome della referenza come volevi...il fatto di questi giorni di aver cambiato è perche la referenza che tu hai messo e si nella pagina ufficiale del lione ma è vecchia e il numero dei goal si ferma alla stagione 2005/2006 come puoi vedere.... mentre oggi sulla pagina ufficiale hanno inserito il numero dei goal aggiornato ad oggi...ossia 90....grazie per il tuo aiuto!--Babboleolr (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

thank you so much and sorry!!!--Babboleolr (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voiceless glottal fricative

I guess nothing is wrong, but if you look at uvular trill, alveolar trill, voiceless uvular fricative, and voiced uvular fricative, they use the same example. I figured using the same example for all of them is best since readers might assume that [h] is an allophone of /ʁ/ rather than the two being dialectal variants. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometime next week, I'll try to address that. Hopefully the notes column can be used to easily fix any confusion for readers. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet

Hi, just saw that you are on the verge of 3RR. So just thought of leaving a message. Shovon (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 16:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "It was a totally unrelated incident to the previous reverts; please examine the page in question before enforcing the decision. Admin who did the block did not bother to a) check what the conflicts were all about, and how they were unrelated to each other, and b) my previous history as an active editor, who contributed in a positive way to an extensive number of articles."

Decline reason: "The block correctly upheld the 3-revert rule, which does not require that reverts be related. — B (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Simply take a look at the page history, it says it all right there. Tiptoety talk 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tiptoety, please examine the page itself in question (not just its history) before enforcing the decision: the last reversal was a totally unrelated incident to the previous two reverts.
  • Also, 24 hours is the maximum punishment for 3RR incidents, destined to the more serious incidents -- do you really consider my case was worthy of such a punishment? I see you have been elected quite recently for adminship, please consider the use of restraint and pondering in your decisions. Regards, Rsazevedo msg 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're wrong about the "maximum punishment for 3RR incidents"; actually, 24 hours is the standard for the first offense, and it escalates from there. Regardless, you weren't blocked for 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The block was correct. The only possible issue is whether Chenyangw (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of a banned user (undoing edits of a banned user made after their ban are exempt from revert limitations). This is obviously not this individual's first foray into editing. I'm not at all familiar with this topic area - is there someone that this user jumps out at you as being a reincarnation of? --B (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't recall any other user of whom he might be a "reincarnation", but it seemed clear to me as well that he was merely editing with the purpose of disrupting the article, and including the Chinese POV -- which is the only reason why I reverted his edits. I never wanted to engage in an edit war, I don't usually do so, I was merely preserving the article.
It seems to me tremendously unfair to equal me, with this block, to a user whose account was created merely for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring; as I mentioned before, I have a previous history as an active and responsible editor, who contributed in a positive way to an extensive number of articles.
Isn't there any way that this block can be revoked or, at least, decreased? 24 hours for any edit-warring seems exceedingly strict, let alone for this one, highly atypical; and, furthermore, I have no reason to proceed with such actions after what just happened. I am not a vandal nor a troll in this project, just check my history.
Regards, Rsazevedo msg 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's something you can discuss with the blocking admin via email if you would like. Part of the problem here is that from looking at the edits on both sides, someone who doesn't know anything about Tibet can't tell if it's just two people with different opinions (not exempt from 3RR) or if one side is putting in obvious fact vandalism (exempt from 3RR). There is no emergency and so my suggestion is to discuss it on the talk page rather than immediately revert it. If 5 people who know what they are talking about agree that what he is adding is nonsense/propaganda/whatever, then that's one thing. But as of now all we have is your assertion and his and no way to evaluate between the two. --B (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked with the editor's promise to desist from edit warring. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Hi! Here is a voting about Bendery/Bender/Tighina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bender%2C_Moldova#Statement_of_Title_Solution --80.142.252.220 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] L'Olonnais

Actually, many contemporary sources, such as Exquemelin, suggest that this man was a sociopath and exhibited behavior far more cruel than the other pirates of his time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.246.43 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet case

I invite you to comment here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ehh....

Sorry, I thought you'd vandalised. I suppose I should've checked the edit history of the pages linked. It's just that a lot of vandals get rid of warnings. Again, sorry. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)