Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Nelly Furtado, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Nelly Furtado. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Advice - This article was put under semi-protection by an Admin because of nationalist edits like yours which can now be considered vandalistic. I'd recommend dropping the issue. --Morenooso (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for offering to help!

Basically, the articles need to meet WP:N. WP:BIO applies to the DeRose article, WP:N to the yoga practice. Basically, they need multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover the topics in a non-trivial way, or otherwise meet notability criteria. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Department of Redundancy Department

I am not quite sure about the degree od communication between editors. At any rate, I'd like to thank you for accepting me as a Reviewer. Much appreciated Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Danilo Caymmi has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC) This has been resolved. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, glad you got it sorted out. I did make a couple of minor adjustments, though; I added the DEFAULTSORT tag (so that he gets listed in the categories under C for Caymmi) and removed a couple of categories that weren't really necessary (he doesn't need to be in both Category:Brazilian flautists and the general Category:Flautists at the same time, and Category:Flautists by nationality is meant as a container for the country-specific subcategories, not for individual people. Just so you know. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I did wonder what to me seemed like duplication of categopries, but I was following what I found in other articles. Living and learning. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I would like to ask for your assistance with an article which is already published in German and English. If you are willing and able I would like you to translate it in Portuguese as it is an international competition for talented violin musicians. It had no Portuguese participants, yet. Actually there is no information in Portuguese about it anywhere in the web. I am available for any related questions. Don't bother with the tablet contents, I can do that by myself. Many thanks in advance. Kindest regards ArcCan (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ArcCan. I will gladly help. Point me to the article so I can take a look. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently edited Backronym to note that "fuck" is a false acronym. Although I know this to be true (I have heard people tell various back-formation stories about the word), consensus is to keep the examples on the page to a small, illustrative set. That word, in particular has been removed since some editors found the mere mention of it objectionable. You may of course disagree with that reasoning, and if you have both reliable sources and a reasonable argument that the word should be represented on the page, please discuss this matter at Talk:Backronym before attempting to re-add it. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've discussed it at Talk:Backronym. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi there, I noticed your changes on the source cited on the Nicaragua page. I personally pulled that source while taking a Politics of Latin America Class and copied it verbatim. The source discussed nothing about Allende killing himself. Well, not in that sentence at least (the purpose of the sentence originally served to discuss a small migration of Chileans to Nicaragua). I'm sure there's a PDF copy online in English where you can search Page 150 and see for yourself.

If you seek a source that describes his suicide, I would suggest citing:

Labarca, Eduardo (2007) Salvador Allende, Biografía Sentimental, Catalonia, pp.339-405 ISBN 978-956-8303-68-6

Regards, Mbhskid520 (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I did not change any sources. I changed some of the text and added more on Pinochet's death. I changed the text because it appeared to have been written by someone with poor command of English ("After Pinochet obtained rule of Chile"). The reference you refer to is on the next sentence. How far back do references go in a piece of text? Besides I thought the purpose of the reference was to sustain the claim about "several hundred committed Chilean revolutionaries joined the Sandinista army in Nicaragua". The text was not in quotation marks, so I interpreted that the reference pointed to information in the source, but not a direct quote. I added right-wing to Pinochet to reinforce the ideological link between the two, but it can be removed.

But don't you agree that it sounds funny to say "After Pinochet obtained rule of Chile, several hundred committed Chilean revolutionaries joined the Sandinista army in Nicaragua"? As for a source on Allende's death, thanks for the lead, but we could simply use the WP itself? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Death.

Regards, --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despite the fact that I do agree with you, I am looking at a hard copy of the actual text (small text, I have the larger one at home), and it seems to say those exact same words.

Guess publishing companies aren't doing their jobs, eh? I'm willing to wait until I go back home just to make sure and check on how much into the source I wrote and see if I can upload a temporary PDF file while at home. (I'll be heading back home in November, so that might require patience.) Mbhskid520 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish is one of the Turkic languages, the one spoken in Anatolia; it is measurably affected by contact with Arabic and Greek. It is not spoken in Inner Mongolia, unless there is a Turkish consulate; therefore Turkic is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, thanks! No special fuel I am aware of. I just regard it as a hobby to make articles I guess. Cheers and thanks for the encouragement! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Rui Gabriel, I am writing to know if you can help me to translate into Portuguese the captions under the images in the Gallery of this page. Very grateful indeed !--Angler45 (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Angler45. I am on holiday out of the country and whenever that happens, I get logged out. Because I did not have a decent connection, I did not log in until recently, when I eventually saw your request. I'll help with the translations in a day or so. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip, but some other editors made the clarification before I had a chance to do it. There is no edit war that I am aware of so if you feel the introduction could use some rewording, please go ahead. Not coming from North America, you are very well positioned to make meaningful contributions to the article. Tinss (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you translate or summarise this page? I would like to use it for my Bicycle helmets by country article. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Savanna Dry, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kudpung. I've been 'away' from WP for a few months and in getting back to it I forget to sign one or more edits. Thanks for the reminder. Um abraço, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at BurtAlert's talk page.
Message added 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Hi Rkitko

I was reading up on soap and came across that information on the Soap substitute page. How do I use a WP page as reference? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So sorry for the delay in answering you. I sometimes let my talk page get away from me. To answer your question, to include information on the saponin levels and usage of Passiflora foetida you would need an external reliable source. Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Try Google Books or Google Scholar for good places to start, but read through WP:V and WP:RS first to understand which kinds of sources are good to use. The soap substitute article could use additional references for each of those species listed. I'm not convinced each is actively used as a source of saponins for soap substitutes. I hope that helps. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rui Gabriel Correia, I was writing articles about her in 4 languages (de,fr,en and pt). Since you are perfect in dutch and spanish....would be great to translate this article. What do you think? Let me know. Regards.--Cruks (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Causa Sui At 07:10, 27 June 2011 you reverted an edit by Nickstarinfinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Hemp page. Nickstarinfinity had made numerous edits to that page. At 07:14, 27 June 2011, 4 minutes after your revert, a new user calling himsef Nickhemp registred and proceeded to make multiple edits to the same hemp page. I saw something odd when today I spotted references to "Cannabis industrialis". I tried to do a DNS lookup, but loks like that function is no longer available. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've reverted the changes and left a note on the user's talk page. Some edits (including at least one of yours) were reverted as well, since there were intermediary edits to the page and I had to revert them all to remove the probable hoax. You might consider adding the article to your watchlist so you can revert these changes before intermediary edits are made. Thanks, --causa sui (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olá gostava de te convidar para participares do Wikiprojecto Angola da wiki Lusófona. Até breve Zorglub-PRV (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I noticed you are listed at Wikipedia:Translators available. Could you please take a look at a post at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Next steps: a call for assistance and advise whether you might be able to help in terms of an Afrikaans or a Portuguese summary? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Portuguese to English translators and wondered if you could translate Prince Peter of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary? Thank you or obrigado.The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Borututu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chokwe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted two of your edits where you incorrectly deleted "béchamel" from articles. Please verify if your own information is correct first before deleting content. - Takeaway (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have fun, Takeaway. I have better things to do then play games with the revert squad. I happen to be Portuguese and equally happen to be the former owner of a restaurant. If ever I was served a rissol with béchamel sauce I would tell the establishment what to do with it. Naturally you know everything there is to know about Portuguese cuisine. Pray do inform me how you come upon your knowledge of bechamel sauce in Portuguese rissóis. Have a great reverting time.

You are allowed to think what you want but I actually did verify if there were Portuguese recipes for rissoles that used béchamel. Here is one: http://cozinhapequena.com/risoles-de-camarao-e-a-chance-de-ganhar-uma-casa/ - Takeaway (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that you will find such recipes does not prove that they are right. It is like saying that if you find a recipe for pizza with custard that THEREFORE, pizze are prepared with custard. And just for your information, the recipe you are using as an example, is a BRAZILIAN, recipe. I happen to be married to a Brazilian, been to Brazil a few times and know that they do things different - like using béchamel in prawn rissoles. THAT IS WHY the note I left on my edit was "NOT IN PORTUGAL". So, perhaps you might now want to acknowledge that you were wrong and undo your revert? As for the other revert, it is not even worth commenting - or anyone that can imagine a SOLID thing like a croquette having a SAUCE as a main ingredient ..... What can I say. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will find many more "wrong" Portuguese recipes if you type the following in to Google: bechamel rissóis site:.pt - Takeaway (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here are some people who apparently do succeed in making a croquette out of a béchamel sauce: http://www.tastespotting.com/detail/32575/Chicken-Breast-and-Bechamel-Croquettes http://www.3coups2fourchette.com/recette.entree.amusebouche.263.html http://www.marmiton.org/recettes/recette_croquettes-au-jambon-simone_37065.aspx http://norecipes.com/blog/polenta-croquette-filled-with-leeks-and-ham-hock/ http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/food/food/view/20110210-319424/Salpicao-with-foie-gras-adobo-croquettes-with-bchamel-sauce-comfort-food http://tvnz.co.nz/masterchef-masterclass/euro-croquettes-4036911 http://tamarindandthyme.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/croquetas-de-jamon/ - Takeaway (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are still sceptical about the use of béchamel sauce in a croquette, here is a webpage from the James Beard Foundation quoting Larousse Gastronomique which says: "Larousse writes that the filling of croquettes is a mixture of vegetables or cooked meats, usually leftover from another use, chopped fine and mixed with béchamel or brown sauce." (see The Official James Beard Foundation Blog, Eat this Word: Croquettes) What can I say. - Takeaway (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Takeaway, you simply just don't get it do you?????? I am NOT disputing the fact that béchamel sause is/ gets used in making croquettes - but it CANNOT be al alternative to POTATOES, MEATS, etc, as it was said the article. Stop trying to prove your point and simply go and read it. It is like saying hambugers are big round buns a filling of meat patty, or vegetable patty OR KETCHUP. Do you see it now? Yes, ketchup is a main ingredient of a hamburger, BUT NOT in place of a solid filling. As for béchamel in Portuguese prawn rissoles, what can I say. I'll have to write to Jimbo and that him the project has failed and we have to start all over again. The whole time we were going after verifiable TRUTH, but you have now hit the nail on the head - if you find it on google, ergo, it therefore is the truth. I am off now to go edit the page on elephant to add that I just found on google a page talking about a goat that gave birth to an elephant. Scientists are puzzled by the flimsy wings on the baby elephant's hips and are doing DNA tests. I bid you a tranquil Sunday. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great news, Geataway! I've just used your search for rissois - and I quote - "type the following in to Google: bechamel rissóis site:.pt" and you are right!! People are doing it wrong! I've just substituted "béchamel" for "flores" (flowers) and whereas there were 12000 entries for "rissois + béchamel", there are 22000 for "rissois + flores". No wonder they need a bailout! They are putting flowers in thei rissoles!!!! Good lord! Tell you, Takeaway, I think ths means a great future for the two of us - let's set up a culinary school in Portugal and teach these people how to make a proper Portuguese rissole! You already have all the answers, I'll put in the hard slog! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a great idea. You seem like such a nice person. I really want to work together with you. - Takeaway (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol! Peace, and 'um abraço', brother. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Tuberoid. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the ((R from trade name)) suggest and a quick google search confirmed, tuberoid is also the trade name of a ethionamide product. As such the redirect was appropriate. In any event, Sminthopsis84 has since turned the page into a disambiguation page making this discussion moot. KTC (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear KFC NO, the redirect was NOT "appropriate" as YOU claim. The redirect appears on a page labelled as "Glossary of botanical terms", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_botanical_terms. So instead of coming out with guns blazing, YOU should have first looked into it before discharging .... Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies! Of course, thank you to minthopsis84 for seeing what needed to be done and actually doing it - unlike others, who thrive on bullying .... Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume that bullying comment was directed at me. How was I bullying? I merely pointed out (nicely!) that a redirect page should not be blanked, and in my comment noted the venue / process where a redirect which you believe to be problematic should be taken for discussion or nominated for deletion. It's not my problem if you over react.... And my username is KTC whereas the other user in question is Sminthopsis84... -- KTC (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi KTC, perhaps it is a lack of understanding on my part of how some things are done. I have often deleted redirects that point to the wrong target, so I was not aware that this one works in a different way, actually resulting in blanking a page. That is why I could not understand why it should be referred to a discussion. So, yes, I overreacted on that count, but maintain that my thinking was correct - "tuberoid" on a list of botanical terms pointing to a product for tuberculosis was wrong. I apologise for overreacting. Have a great weekend. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you were right to remove this uncited edit from the article Retinal scan, but I think it may have been a good faith edit rather than vandalism. Best not to bite people until we're sure they need biting :) ciphergoth (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I hope you are well and thriving!! WikiAfrica has just put out a call for two Wikipedians in Residence. One in Cape Town at WikiAfrica, at the Africa Centre; and the other for WikiAfrica Cameroon in Douala, at doual’art. If you are interested, please contact either Marilyn [marilyn.doualabelldoualart.org] for the WikiAfrica Cameroon call or Isla [islahfafricacentre.net] for the WikiAfrica position in Cape Town.

If you are not interested in applying, I would be very grateful if you could spread this call far and wide among your networks to ensure that both projects get excellent candidates. Here is the link for the information page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/two-wikipedians-in-residence-for-africa/

Best regards, Islahaddow

(This message was sent using Lucia Bot at 22:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Do you live in Angola?

(Note: Please send answer to my talk page)--Sabri76'^talk 09:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serfdom in Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grzywna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rui! Just a friendly note that ((Wikify)) has been deprecated in favor of more specific templates. For example, in Portuguese inventions, I replaced ((Wikify)) with ((Tone)). Happy editing, and happy new year! GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, GoingBatty. I saw that it had been deprecated and the prompt to use more specific templates, but going through the aternatives, I could not see one that was specific to lack/ absence of notability. Thanks for helping and have a grear 2013 too. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CORRECTION!!!! Sorry, this has nothing to do with naotability - I was tinking of an article that I proposed for speedy deletion for lackof notability. Got the two incidents mixed up. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Bom dia Rui. I appreciate your request, but how may I be of service? Your best bet would be to upload the image, providing the valid release information on Wikimedia Commons. After that, it just a matter of using it in your Portuguese Wikipedia article (and likewise English variant). Can you please specify how I may assist you? ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at HammerFilmFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Tiderolls 17:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The editor deleted my message to you rather quickly, so I'm posting a diff to make sure you have an opportunity to read my post. You may read the message here. Tiderolls 17:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• To reply to your message on my user talk; the guidelines you quoted do not apply a user's own talk page. Editors are granted wide latitude in the maintenance of their user talk. There are limited circumstances that prohibit an editor from deleting messages from their own user talk but none of the circumstances apply in this case. I agree, working on content is much more rewarding. I thank you for your contributions. Regards Tiderolls 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right - I did for a second blur the two. But thanks for your help (about deleting on article talk page), even though it was summarily ignored, like water off a duck's back. Like I said, there are better things, a whole world out there. If you ever need any help with creeating/ editing related to Portuguese/ Portuguese-speaking countries, please feel free to drop me a note. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for kicking in on the article. I'll be looking over the changes you made and will consider it a learning opportunity.

I had the edit window up for days and essentially got stuck, because I clearly haven't written enough to do it adroitly yet. Poco a poco.

Once again, thanks. Chango369w (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chango369w. I was actually lured to go back to the article when I saw you edit summary "Added a medical studies section". I would love to see a section like that for every flower, fruit, plant, seed, name it. So I applaud your efforts. I know it is a lot of work looking up sources, otherwise anything you claim about medical properties will be taken down within seconds. In fact I landed yesterday on the eugenia page to see if it was related to the curry tree. The Portuguese page makes some very big claims that are still in need of good references - http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murraya_koenigii. Regards, and "bom trabalho" Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Faizan Al-Badri's talk page.
Message added 11:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo 11:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Faizan Al-Badri's talk page.
Message added 10:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Faizan -Let's talk! 10:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I try to solve interwiki-conflicts. You reverted Marcello and Religious_institute_(Catholic). Marcello is quite difficult, because there are different forms of the name in different languages (Marello, Marcel, Marcellus, ...). Some versions of Wikipedia have articles to different forms of the name, others only one. I try to explain, why I removed each link:

• cs:Marcel links back to Marcel_(given_name)
• de:Marcellus (Name) should better point to de:Marcello
• it:Marcello is already on wikidata:Q5405462
• la:Marcellus is a difficult case. But maybe Marcellus and [[la:Marcellus] fit together better.
• hu:Marcell is also difficult. But hu:Marcell links back to Marcel_(given_name).
• nl:Marcel links back to Marcel_(given_name).
• ja:マルケッルス Unfortunately I don't speak Japanese. But ja:マルケッルス links back to Marcel_(given_name)]].
• pl:Marceli is difficult.
• ru:Маркел is difficult. But ru:Маркел links back to Marcel_(given_name).
• sk:Marcel links back to Marcel_(given_name).
• sl:Marcel links back to Marcel_(given_name).
• sr:Марцел is difficult. But sr:Марцел links back to Marcel_(given_name).

What should I do? What is the right place to discuss this? May I remove at least the links to de, and it? Alexander.Meier (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Well, for starters, what you are doing is just plain odd! It is like going down the street with a broom sweeping, while you van see that jist behind you there is a truck fitted with brushes sweeping right right you ......... But worst of all, you are labelling your efforts "wikilink conflicts". What conflicts? I am really puzzled, after all, you signed up 3 days ago and isntead of starting with common small edits like we all do, you go for admin and upkeep tasks that are automated. I am not sure I understand what you are trying to achieve .......

Perhaps you are right in asking "What is the right place to discuss this?". I don't know - try the usual places such as the Village pump etc ......

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Rui Gabriel Correia! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listen here you self-righteous prick,

Do not lecture me on my command of the English language, I am an American and English is my first language. My mistake with embark and embarkation was a simple slip of the memory and wording. You must forgive my outright rudeness in this message, but if there is one thing that gets me it's passive aggressiveness, and you seem to be a master at pissing me off. Now I assume you will get flustered with this message and report me or something, but quite frankly I don't give a shit. I have added more to this encyclopedia in this year alone than what you will in your entire tenure, and editors like you are what discourage editors like me.

Thank you,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rui Gabriel,
The fact that you can hold your face above my comments above and ask that we work together in a friendly manner makes me respect the hell out of you. No apologies necessary, my comments were emotion based when they should have been logic based, and with that I offer my own apologies. I hope a great deal we can work together, and I hope that you won't take my pride-driven backlash as a sign of my total character and ability.

On another note, I hear South Africa is lovely, my grandfather moved there for some years from Mozambique after it gained independence. I was born in America, but my life has been divided between the US and Sintra. It truly is a beautiful "Eden", is it not?

Do let me know if I can ever be of any help. I mainly work in Portuguese royalty and Portuguese history in general, but if I'd be glad to try to help with anything.

Thank you,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rui Gabriel Correia! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:History of California until 1899 § Proposed move. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. The relevant guideline is WP:CANVAS. When it comes to enforcement, the consensus that I've seen is that it's more of a exacerbating factor than anything, something that's usually ignored unless it's part of much larger and worse problems.

As far as consensus-building goes when there is canvassing, it's usually appropriate to point out the canvassing if it wasn't disclosed, and possibly point out conflicts of interest or relevant ArbCom enforcement. Beyond that, consensus is not a WP:VOTE, so it shouldn't matter much who comments, but how editors think the relevant policies/guidelines apply, and what sources are available and their quality. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference between canvassing and simply notifying people who might have an interest in the topic is in the motivation and the execution. It's okay to simply and neutrally notify people who might (e.g. by virtue of having edited the article before) have enough an interest in the topic to have something useful to contribute to the discussion — what's not okay is to "canvas" votes from people you consider likely to support a particular outcome while ignoring people who might legitimately have a different opinion, or to present your case in an overly biased way (e.g. "these crazy people think my pet topic is not notable, you and I know better so come help save it!"), or other behaviour which suggests that you're deliberately trying to stack the discussion in favour of a particular outcome.

Think of it like an election — it's kind of like difference between a non-partisan effort to encourage people to get out and vote in principle, and encouraging people to come vote for your particular candidate (which is technically okay in that context, but there are strict rules about where and how you can or can't do it.) Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Talk:Flickr.
Message added 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

kikichugirl (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm a little late to the dispute, but I note that you made three reverts at the article (1, 2, 3) after adding the disputed content. Generally, per our three revert rule, you should mostly be blocked for this edit warring for at least 24 hours. As you may not have known, I'll let you off with a warning now; next time please discuss after a change you've made is reverted; I note that you tried, but you seem to have neglected following through to our verifiability and anti-original research policies. Being bold is good, but Wikipedia is built by consensus, so please try to focus on the discussion more next time something like this happens. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have watchlisted the article page in case there is such removal happening. I note, however, that the reverted edits pointed to primary sources which you used to evidence your own conclusions, and not an independent source reporting on any controversy surrounding Flickr and the nudity available. That is why the other editors were pointing to WP:OR. Now, if reliable newspaper or book sources were pointing towards such a controversy or thing to be aware of, that would likely be supportable within an article. Looking through Google, I'm only finding individual instances (1, 2) of issues stemming from nudity on Flickr, but not about nudity on Flickr per se. At the moment, at least, the issue doesn't seem to have enough secondary coverage beyond "Flickr allows users to post nude and sexual images.(cited to Flickr) Gross misdemeanor charges have been leveled against users who have uploaded nude images of others onto Flickr; (example from case)." How due/undue it is would require further discussion, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for that utter mess that I made of the Portuguese people infobox, I was trying to correct it on a mobile as my computer is faulty. Do you agree with me that as per articles like Danes the box should just indicate their primary religion? Those numbers looked random and unsourced, never mind strange. On articles such as German people, with their Lutheran-Catholic split, it is necessary, but there is no such significant split in Portugal or its diaspora. Unless a source could ever prove that. Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC) obrigadoReply[reply]

Hi, Indiasummer95. I'll check Portuguese sources and will revert. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Takeaway's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Takeaway's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Takeaway's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portuguese East India Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rui Gabriel Correia. Thanks for your edit to Jesus. However, per MOS:POSS bullet 3 (and perhaps also bullet 2), it is normal to write Jesus' as the possessive of Jesus. In fact, some grammar books claim that the final s after the apostrophe should be omitted whenever it would lead to three or more consecutive sibilants. I'm not sure about that, but the case for Jesus' seems pretty clear. I hope you won't mind, but I have restored it. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Windows XP shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please not that your use of Talk:Windows XP violates talkpage guidelines including, but not limited to, WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for espousing personal opinions. AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Don't restore this material again or you will be blocked. --John (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hello there, your purposes will be better served by containing the edit warring discussion in one place. Please post any relevant diffs about which you need to complain at the ANI thread rather than at WP:ANEW. And it will help your case greatly if you can work out a less confrontational way of stating your case. It really gets people's backs up when wikilawyering language gets used so it will genuinely harm your case if you don't moderate it. Please don't post any further at ANEW - keep the discussion in one place at ANI from now on. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello.

I think you should note what you said in your edit summary about editing as an IP alongside your claimed the wiki age, otherwise the impression could be – for those who check your edit count – that you are suffering from the Münchausen syndrome.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I'm sorry about the nonsense I posted on Wikipedia on July 22, 2013 . Thanks for editing it out. Here's a barn star. Skyler Janious (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an answer to your comment—and a question for you—here. Regards, Jeh (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Seven hills of Istanbul, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alex2006 (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My dear, in wikipedia there is a rule which is called WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, discuss). I invited you to bring your thoughts on the Talk page of the corresponding article, and you ignored it. Next revert I will be forced to bring you to a board. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I wait for your thoughts. Sorry, but wikipedia works by discussing, and not keeping reverting. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made an edit as is the nature of the WP, you reverted my edit and suggested I discuss it "if [I] don't like it". It is not a matter of liking - it is a question of logic, pure and simple. If there really are seven hills (at least 230 cities in the world claim to be built on seven hills), they they have been there for billions of years, it has nothing to do with them wanting to copy Rome. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot to mention - I reverted ONCE, you reverted TWICE and you are going to block me for reverting? Intersting! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Gabriel, please don't take it personally. I am not going to block you because you reverted, but because you are refusing to discuss on the talk page. :-) please read again WP:BRD. About the seven hills of Constantinople, I will be glad to discuss this issue with you on the talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rui Gabriel Correia. I didn't have a gut instinct, as I don't speak Portuguese. However, I was looking up the pronunciation of a Portuguese word which now escapes me, and found myself trying to understand [ɨ]. What also escapes me is why I concluded that listing this as 'back' as opposed to 'central' was simply a typo. I was merely looking at the tabular environment of [ɨ] on that page and putting one and one together. But upon further inspection, I concluded (for some reason) that I was not obviously correct. Sorry I'm not able to remember more of my thought process. Jerry (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gabriel. As you have previously expressed an interest in the matter, please can you participate in the move discussion. HelenOnline 08:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I see you have not participated in the current move discussion although you specifically asked about a new move discussion on the article talk page last year. Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions about it. (Sorry to ping you and repeat myself but I am not sure if you have seen my post here.) HelenOnline 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. As you have now realised, there were (at least) two Burkes who were botanists. David Burke only collected nepenthes, orchids etc., whereas Joseph Burke seemed to be wide-ranging in his interests, but it's hard to tell as his article needs a complete re-write. (At present, it looks like a straight lift out of the book cited.) This article lists species collected by him. I hope this is of some help. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Middle English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valuable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lui, yes, perhaps leaving the user a short message in an edit summary referring them to their talk page might be a good idea. Unfortunately there aren't any other ways to attract their attention besides blocking them again. Graham87 01:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you did with the Griquas, reverting what was rigt and then fixing it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your English I'm afraid, please relax and write legibly. So Rui, if you're upset about the Griqua edits, it was my intention to put back the point about the pseudo-military structure they maintained for their society. You removed it; I don't know what your studies are in southern African history (where are you based by the way?), but I believe you were wrong there - the Griquas had a mobilised society. Abu Shawka (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way Rui, as an afterthought I recommend you read the book "Settler Colonialism and Land Rights in South Africa" by Edward Cavanagh. It has a good run-through of Griqua society and how it developed, especially the Orange River settlements. Abu Shawka (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recommend that you put the bok to some useful purpose and share some of its information on the Griguas, about their military structures, kapteins etc. It would be riveting to learn how they acquired guns, as there were prohibitions on the sales of guns to anyone who could later pose a threat. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gladly will, but please Mr Correia, no more snap edits by people who haven't read up on the subject! Or at the very least, no more angry tantrums if I revert those edits. (Seriously, a few months ago I had an furious American trying to tell me that Cape Colony Administrator Sir Richard Southey was an Apartheid leader! A colonial administrator nearly a hundred years before the body of apartheid legislation was passed! If you're well read on Cape history you'll see the ridiculousness of this sort of claim, and why I'm brief when it comes to uninformed outsiders' edits.) Abu Shawka (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, the Griqua had their guns from before that prohibition came in. They were decommissioned commandos from earlier cape history. Even as late as the 1870s though, workers on the mines could acquire firearms before they returned to their homelands, so even the Gcaleka were full armed with guns by then. Abu Shawka (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you've done there isn't invalid in and of itself, but simply raising a discussion on the article's own talk page won't necessarily result in any specific action being taken — it may or may not result in discussion, but it won't necessarily lead to anything actually happening as a result of that discussion unless you or somebody else actively takes the followup step of initiating a real AFD nomination.

If you want to actually nominate the article for the real deletion process, rather, what you need to do is place ((subst:afd1)) at the top of the article, and then follow the process to actually create and list a formal nomination. Hope that helps a bit... Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CSD isn't the same process as AFD. CSD (or "speedy deletion") doesn't require discussion — from the moment you place the template, an administrator can review the situation absolutely anytime and either delete the article immediately if they agree with your assessment or strip the template if they don't. Sometimes that takes a few hours, while other times it happens within minutes — that depends solely on how quickly somebody gets to it, not on waiting for a discussion to formulate consensus.

If the article is up for a full AFD discussion, though, then that type of template cannot be removed from an article, whether anyone else agrees with the assessment or not, until the discussion has been completed and assessed for consensus and closed accordingly.

A declined CSD, further, doesn't mean that the article can't subsequently be AFDed instead — there are only certain specific criteria by which an article can be CSDed, and even an obviously deletable article doesn't necessarily always fall into one of those criteria. So you still have the option of formulating a full AFD by ((subst:afd1)) instead, and following the directions on that template to formulate and complete a full AFD nomination — you just can't nominate it for speedy deletion again, that's all. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sympathize with your confusion. Wikipedia can be confusing in its procedures, sometimes, especially if you've never explored them before. You've made a case for deletion already, basically based on the suspicion that that the article is rife with conflict-of-interest. To intiate an WP:AfD, as Bearcat says, add the template ((subst:afd1)) at the top of the article, then copy and paste the comment you made on the article's talk page onto the page that template will create for you. If you do that, I'll ensure that page makes it through the rest of the process. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for housekeeping on Virginiana! It gave me the idea for the edit I made right after yours:s see if you like it even better? I notice you made that edit on similar pages and thought maybe if you did more.... -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

H — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.228.11 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Talk:Lakh.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

--Ysangkok (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By "assessment", it was meant how their activities were perceived by important people who studied about them, both Pedro Taques de Almeida Paes Leme and Robert Southey did it.Grenzer22 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It makes a lot of sense. If you were familiar with Bandeirantes history, you'd already have come upon those quotes. I have read them time and again, when studying the subject. Besides I have copies of the books of both Pedro Taques de Almeida Paes Leme and Robert Southey. If you were familiar too with these names, then you'd know they are a source for historians.Grenzer22 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously you don't understand English! The HEADING/ TITLE, "assessment" does not make sense. I am not talking about the content of that section - just the title. Ok? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry if you think that my edits are POV but it is not my intention. A number of my edits were in fact designed to make NPOV.

On indigenous people I removed info because it was far more detailed than the rest. On Native americans my edit is consistent with how it is on other pages. On Angola I changed it to MPLA because that is how it is commonly refered to on the page. Don't no why you mentioned Vietnam, my edit was correct. On indigenous people, I removed redress because it was a figure for the total indigenous people, not the total seeking redress. I have reasons for my other edits.

Maybe I dont explain my edits well enough but I dont think its fair to call my edits blatant POV. My edits hardly make the pages more biased. Just to clarify that is my IP but always forget to login. Regards.Stumink (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gabo - see my post User talk:Dodger67#Evidence of severe bias in editing. Also, if you take a look at the editor concerned's talk page and review the history (particularly the deleted text) - one sees that it really appears to be frequent and general problem with the editor concerned. Lets see if this continues and if so, suggest we post the details for comments / advice on the Military History talk page. Also, I would like to see Rogers point of view. Rgds. Farawayman (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, my friend. It would appear we stumbled upon these issues at a very similar time. I have been actually tangling with the IP at 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and related pages. As a matter of fact I just filed an SPI for the pair of them, here, because the evidence seemed compelling enough for me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I just read your comment on farawayman's page; so they are in fact the same person. The problem seems very frequent, though, so I intend to let the SPI run its course, they will perhaps get a rap on the knuckles. Do you disagree? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I see you had your dealings with them - and still at it, sanitising references to the US (x2). Stumink claims that he/ she forgets to log in, but, if you look at the edits on the 4th of May, he/she edited as Stumink at 21:16, then as an IP at 21:24, then again as Stumink at 21:27 and again as an IP at 21:35. I think that a rap on the knuckles is really getting off very lightly. Perhaps for the sock, yes. But what about all the rest of the POV editing on everything that is different from what he/ she is? A block and stern warning on the PDU is the very least. And he / she should be monitored from here on. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I didn't make myself very clear; I am not at all a fan of the POV pushing they are indulging in, but POV pushing by itself is not an actionable offense here, which is why I'm letting the SPI run, and we will see what comes off it. I mentioned a rap on the knuckles not as what they should get, but rather as what ther are likely to get, if they own up to it at the SPI. Anyhow, let's see how it goes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't online when you messaged me, but I am now. What did you want to discuss? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word peut-être is pronounced "per-tight" in Quebec French, it's strange ? Fort123 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot possibly imagine that it is pronounced "per-tight" in Quebec. Perhaps some urban legend or similar sort of nonsense. Regard, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te69JK28DDo

The word fête is pronounced "fight" in Quebec French. Fort123 (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are not sure, because you are not a Quebecker. Fort123 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there RUI GC, AL from Portugal "here",

indeed, my summary in this person's article was highly exaggerated whilst reverting you, accept my sincere apologies and the certainty it won't happen again.

My defense now: no need for the "da" in the infobox, that way we keep it more compressed and, besides, the club's full name already appears in storyline.

Happy editing, sorry again for the antics --AL (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The "...one-liners and overlinking TOS!" bit was about another user not yourself, i just wrote about him in that summary. Now for the rest: i sincerely apologized after realizing i had blown things out of proportion stupidly, and you not only do not accept the apologies but reply in taunting ("...won't be coming... near your playpen", "Carry on playing", poking fun at my use of "my bad") and accusations (when you imply that reverting your changes for the heck of it IS vandalism).

I have been on this seat for far too long. Sometimes i blow a casket in edit summaries (i am an undiagnosed and unmedicated bipolar, not excusing myself, just saying), then immediately realize the idiotic ways i have engaged in and apologize to the user in question. Tell you what, more than half of them (way more!) get on their high horses and don't accept any apologies whatsoever, so maybe there's a pattern (if all those editors don't accept the apologies, well maybe i'm to blame, i accept my share of the wrongdoing, no problem whatsoever).

I won't be telling you my age because: 1 - your reaction tells me you don't want to have anything else with me wikiwise, so why go into details of my personal life (wait, i just did it above, the "bipolar" thing)? 2 - if i did, would it add anything to the situation?

To further show my deepest sorrow, i have now reverted myself in box thus reinstating your changes, can't do anything else and won't be apologizing until the cows come home as you can imagine. You don't accept them, nothing more can i do. Adeus, boas edições --AL (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've been asked by AL to dip in to this discussion. I don't think he will mind me saying that he can be a little headstrong, but always acts in good faith. A resolution seems to have been reached now so I think this can be put to bed. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I live in Montreal, I have heard the Quebeckers pronounce "fight" for fête, "on night" for honnête, "paw" for pas etc. I have not asked to someone that how to pronounce the word pêche, but I have asked someone that this pronunciation is [paɪ̯ʃ] or [pɐɪ̯ʃ], because this pronunciation is not clear. But I hear clearly [paɪ̯ʃ] in this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHx3uxHe7c Fort123 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello RGC,

thank you for contacting me. I have already commented in the field to where you redirected me.

Attentively --AL (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not have to delete it, because other people will also have that very same question. resolved items stay on the talk page for that reason--Inayity (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Singana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your PROD has been contested post deletion, and has been restored. You must decide if you wish to escalate it to WP:AFD  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DO have a go with Twinkle - no special flags needed, just tick the box in the Gadgets section in Preferences. You wonder how you ever did without it. It makes adding things like PROD and AFD a dream - so much so, that you'll miss it if it goes down!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your friendly manner re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Durrant. It's appreciated!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teria como terminar de traduzir essa página? Grato. 189.101.40.134 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In response to your question at User_talk:Master_Of_Ninja#Adidas_balls it is due to wikipedia programming - you can force the Wikipedia server to list them slightly differently. For example I see Adidas Tango is under A in Category:Adidas_footballs, however Brazuca is (correctly to my mind) under B. Now you can see how I linked Brazuca in the last sentence, but it actually linkes to Adidas Brazuca. You can do these for categories too. When you add a category you can use the "|" character when editing it to force it to list under a different letter - so Brazuca is forced to be listed as "Brazuca" rather than "Adidas Brazuca". This can be selective. So if you look at Adidas Questra which I have just changed you can see for certain categories I have made it listed as "Questra" and for others "Adidas Questra" for where it makes organisational sense. Have a look at the wikipedia markup for each of the examples to see how it is done. I hope this answers your question. If you have any more just ask. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in case you have the time, I'm making a general request hoping that someone can tidy my machine code translation of the Population Matters' article mentioned. (Ultimately I hope to move the article to "População é importante" or whatever might be the best translation of "Population (as a subject) is important"). The article is currently up for deletion so I'm contacting a few potential translators. Please check: W:pt:Population_Matters&action=history to avoid wasting time. If the article is deleted I would still appreciate its development at w:pt:Usuário(a):Gregkaye/Testes. Any help with any population related article would also be appreciated. Many thanks Gregkaye (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC) w:en:User_talk:GregkayeReply[reply]

Gabriel: you stated -- "So, should we not simply remove the references to "markets in North America and the Western Hemisphere"? Or am I missing something?"

One part of the paragraph in question addresses regions of cultivation, whereas the last sentence, I believe (not written originally by me), concerns retail sales. I believe it is a fact that whole pomegranates have become quite commonly provided in grocery stores in Europe and the US, as stated in two references, so I edited the sentence again. Feel free for another edit if you deem it. --Zefr (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started an article about him. It was supposed to be in my sandbox but I obviously need more coffee. HelenOnline 10:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Anthony Walker spied "just for the money", i.e., for financial gain. Other traitors and spies do what they do for political or ideological reasons. — Quicksilver^{T @} 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is about a man who was convicted of espionage. The infobox contains some basic facts about the man. The infobox template is called Template:Infobox criminal. The various bits of information, such as "Spouse" and "Occupation" are simply parameters in the infobox that can be filled in or left blank. The arrangement of the parameters does not imply, as you seem to suggest, that the "spouse" was for "financial gain". John Anthony Walker is a convicted criminal. It is, therefore, appropriate to use the Infobox criminal template in the article. — Quicksilver^{T @} 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mangalitsa 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:

• or '''Mangalica''' (original spelling) is a natural breed of [[pig]]s from [[Europe]] pigs) that are descended directly from [[wild boar]] populations.<ref name="Heath Putnam">((cite web |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may well be right in your change to the caption of the image showing peeled Opuntia fruits for sale at Cactus#Food. However, it does then raise the question of whether these are all fruits of the Indian Fig (Opuntia ficus-indica), as the caption claims, or actually of different species of Opuntia. Do you have any more knowledge or information about this? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gabriel, after the discussion about botanical specimens, I was going to ask you about an odd entry in a database about a plant name published by your father. I think I found the answer, though. I don't have access to the journal Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana for 1967. The plant is recorded as Danthoniopsis aptera R.I.S. Correia & Phipps in Tropicos. The difficulty with that is that Phipps is the official abbreviation for Constantine Phipps, 2nd Baron Mulgrave who lived two centuries earlier. However, while composing this message I checked IPNI, which says that J.B.Phipps is the other author, which is much more plausible! The problem appears to be solved. Sorry to bother you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The spelling as "Augusto" needs a source – the list as a whole is sourced to IPNI, which has "Agosto", so as of now the alternative spelling is not in accord with the source given. Can you please add a ref for the "Augusto" spelling? Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Peter coxhead: If I am not asking too much, could you do it if you are deft at it? I can do it later, but it takes me ages, as they have complicated things with "refname = xxxxx" and tricky 6-line long refs.

• Site of the Ministry of Rural Development of Cape Verde, where he worked for many years and who named the national botanical gardens after him. http://www.mdr.gov.cv/index.php/arquivonoticias/147-filha-de-grandvaux-barbosa-visita-cabo-verde
• Chicago Natural History Museum, Bulletin, page 5, bottom left
• Googlebooks, http://books.google.co.za/books/about/Carta_fitogeogr%C3%A1fica_de_Angola.html?id=J2M_AAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y
• Knowledge Portal of the Gov of Cape Verde, pg 60, cited under "T", for "TEIXEIRA, António José da Silva & BARBOSA, Luís Augusto Grandvaux Barbosa"

I have also in the meantime contacted a number of databases about the selling and have had confirmation that they will make the corrections from Harvard, JSTOR and the Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences in Hawaii. PS: Were the sources on opuntia of any use? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'll add one of these refs to the page. Thanks! Did you contact IPNI? If not, I'll do so.

The Opuntia stuff is on my "to-do" list – I never have enough time for Wikipedia! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Peter coxhead:. I had not contacted IPNI becuase I could not locate the name on their data bases to refer them to their own link. They don't have a global search function, it is still field-based. Eventually this morning I decided to just tell them about it without pointing them to a specific page on their database. I am sure they will find it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Oré reference is cited in full in the References section at the end of the article. I found Spanish Borderlands Sourcebooks 23: The Missions of Spanish Florida in my local library. If you are interested in learning more about Father Oré, there is an article about him, "Beyond the Martyrs of Florida: the Versatile Career of Luis Gerónimo de Oré", in Volume 71, Issue 2 of the Florida Historical Quarterly. You can access the article for free by browsing for it at http://palmm.fcla.edu/fhq/. -- Donald Albury 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is how I left the references after the three edits I made om 24 April 2010 (see Notes and References at the end). Some one has since changed the 'Notes' section to 'References' and consolidated the 'References' section the 'Further Reading' section. I will fix that. -- Donald Albury 11:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does leave the article with a mix of inline and Harvard citations. It should be one or the other, but as I have had little to do with editing the article I will refrain from converting one way or the other without input from other contributors. -- Donald Albury 11:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] What think you? I seem to recognize an old friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SUBCAT: "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category"

I agree that we need better tools for doing exactly the kind of thing you're talking about, e.g., find me all the Cookbooks (including those in subcategories), or for that matter find me all the Authors who were Born in Canada between 1800 and 1900. Right now, you have to use dbpedia for that kind of thing, which isn't user-friendly at all. --Macrakis (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bourbon whiskey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bourbon County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Rui -- I noticed your edit to Parsi changing "Cambai" to "Cambaia". I assume that this is the spelling in a direct quote. It is spelled "Cambay" in three different articles on WP: List of princely states of India (alphabetical), Khambhat, and Cambay State. Just thought I'd point that out. Best regards CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)CorinneSD (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the time we had together over the Mbunda articles. I have learnt something from you. Let us now wait for other editors to check us out. You have a friend in me. No hard feelings. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't moved to a capital letter. Extension Service was created first. I simply retargetted Extension service to the pre-existing dab page, which seemed like a more appropriate target than Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Cheers,—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 22:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I have that ability, but surely you could list it under the criteria for WP:RM/TR and/or WP:G6.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Rui Gabriel Correia:. Testing Ping. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Testing "mention" Rui Gabriel Correia. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Rui Gabriel Correia:. Testing Ping. Testing editing earlier post 41.13.4.220 (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Testing "mention" Rui Gabriel Correia. Okay, so editing sends out new ping or mention. So that is sorted.

Thank you for the suggestions; I will look for a WP:RS when I get a chance regarding Leo Africanus' Greek etymology of 'Africa'. Also, I will read up on H:REV to ensure that I appropriately revert.Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 22:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I've reverted your bold edit again. Please read WP:BRD for future reference in how to respond to this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you please translate the entry "pt:Críticas à Rede Globo" for the wiki-en? Thankfully. 177.182.54.27 (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Criticism of Rede Globo". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, someone has sent you a message here. 138.229.25.158 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings:

These existed on a single page at some distant time, but galleries of images are discouraged so someone removed it. You might want to edit out the unneeded links. Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Niceguyedc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello Rui Gabriel Correia, I dream of horses has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. @ 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for your help with the situation on the Big data page! My inclination now is to just post a RfD tag there. If Editor-in-Question removes an RfD, that's pretty clear edit-warring/disruptive editing, and I think admins will intervene. And if he doesn't remove it, I expect other WP editors will share our opinion about this page. -- Narsil (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posting this on User:Rui Gabriel Correia, User:BlueRasberry, User:SPACKlick)'s pages)

Hi! I hope it's okay to ask for your help one more time on Big Data.

Frankly, I feel that while User:Jugdev is most likely acting in good faith, he is engaged in disruptive editing. I think we're locked in a pattern: If I revert the page during the US day (and explain why), he'll revert it again in the middle of the US night (and post a message saying "I already explained that my change is in keeping with WP style and it comes from a highly respected source"). (example, example, example)

Honestly, I think our only play--assuming he hasn't already crossed the line to disruptive editing--is to take turns reverting changes. If it's always "Narsil reverts, Jugdev unreverts, Narsil ununreverts", then we're both edit-warring. If several WP editors revert his changes and he's always unreverting, I think we have a clear case that he's being disruptive.

Apologies for bothering you! If you'd rather not be involved any further I totally understand.

(P.S. I see he's already been blocked once, recently, for edit warring. I'll ask User:Kuru--who imposed the block--whether he's reached that point again.) Narsil (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the reason was stated in the removal summary. It is unsourced, due to the fact that Angola lacks common features in its accents. AND... It is an infobox for languages, not countries.--Pedro (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not much into discussions in talk pages. As for that, read this: http://www.ciberduvidas.com/aberturas.php?id=1003 It deals with that subject and how we should name these articles.--Pedro (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Não era o que quis dizer, simplesmente não quero perder horas a fio em discussões como acontece na WP em portugues e depois vai-se a ver o artigo e está uma miséria. Aqui perde-se pouco e a qualidade é muito maior. Sou a favor claro de uma colaboração para melhorar o artigo, já andei a ler alguns papers sobre isso, é um assunto que acho interessante e há pouca informação, o que aumenta o interesse. Havendo tempo, porque não? O ciberduvidas existe e tem nome, tem link, enquanto o que o capmo está a dizer e como fonte simplesmente não existe lá o que ele diz. Com que imagem ficas? Ninguém nega o enraizamento do Portugues em Angola. São numeros muito expressivos para um país africano de tamanho consideravel e como é evidente tem os seus proprios sotaques. Formas diferentes de falar uma lingua não é exclusiva de países, a variação é maioritariamente regional. Alem de que sotaques nao fazem com que se use infoboxes de linguas. Mais... não é apenas o ciberduvidas, aquilo foi o que estava à mão.--Pedro (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, the two manillas in the photo are hand made - cast into a mould and therefore small difference exist - they are not identical in the way that minted coins are.92.22.31.243 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rui. I'm working on the article Joseph Michael Levry and there's an important source [2] that's available only in Portuguese. I've done a Google translation which is enough to get the gist of it, but there's one paragraph that I would like to ensure we get correct. Could you translate it, please?

Extremamente reservado - "a entrevista não tem de ser sobre mim, mas sobre a sabedoria espiritual divina" -, Levry se recusa a dar detalhes muito precisos de sua vida pessoal, para além do fato de que nasceu na Costa do Marfim, trabalhou no "mundo do dinheiro" cerca de 20 anos atrás e que "estava indo bem" financeiramente quando decidiu largar a vida de executivo e se dedicar à elaboração de sua doutrina, uma mistura de Kundalini, "considerada a mãe de todos os iogas", com cabala, nome dado aos estudos milenares judaicos que procuram desvendar a relação entre Deus e suas criações no universo.

Many thanks in anticipation,  —SMALLJIM  19:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Smalljim. My pleasure.

Extremely reserved - "the interview does not have to be about me, but about the divine spiritual wisdom" - Levry refuses to give very precise details of his personal life, beyond the fact that he was born in the Ivory Coast, he worked on "world of money" about 20 years ago and that he "things were going well" financially when he decided to leave executive life and devote himself to working on his doctrine, a mixture of Kundalini, "considered the mother of all yogas" and Kabbalah, the name given to the ancient Jewish studies that seek to unravel the relationship between God and his creations in the universe.

Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that extremely fast response, Rui! Could I ask one small extra question – do you get the impression that "mundo do dinheiro" might be a commonly-used idiom for banking or finance, or something like that?  —SMALLJIM  20:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be, but it could also be that he always worked in top paying jobs.. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For the above – and the other people you've helped.  —SMALLJIM  20:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. I did some research and actually learnt something. "o mundo do dinheiro" is actually used in the same way as we would use the expression "Big Money" in English. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha. So it sounds as if a reasonable summary of that part might be: about 20 years ago he had made a lot of money from some unspecified job(s) and then decided to leave that work and devote himself to his doctrine.  —SMALLJIM  21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh – I've just seen in the first paragraph of the article pretty clearly states that he was a Wall Street executive. Sorry! I should have read it all properly.  —SMALLJIM  21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gabriel. Could you keep an eye on Talk:Mikhail Rodziank? Twice I removed something, but this person thinks it is very important what he found.Taksen (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Rui Gabriel Correia: Acabo de deixar um breve apontamento para si na página de discussão de "Mbunda people". Quero acrescentar que, por tudo o que sei, "Mbunda" é a mesma coisa que "Bunda". Sendo que a última forma foi dada pelos portugueses, no tempo colonial: naquele período houve muitas simplificações de etnónimos, especialmente quando estes não "soavam" aos ouvidos portugueses. Como combinações "inusitadas" de consoantes. Aqui o "mb". O caso mais gritante parece ser o dos Tshokwe (que hoje escrevem "Côkwe" em Angola): a combinação "t + ch" tanto feriu os ouvidos, que se passou a chamar este povo de "quiocos"...Aflis (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent request

Aside from Ndandulalibingi's behavior, the whole situation seems somewhat simple: can't we just cut everything that's not properly sourced, and then work with what remains? I've just reduced Mbunda Kingdom to about 13% of its previous size by cutting tons and tons of unsourced information, and some yet remains. Couldn't the same be done to the people article? Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permit me to give my opinion on this. According to the rules used by scientists, at universities and at research institutions of the same level (I have myself been part of this world until retirement), oral tradition is perfectly acceptable as a source, if published or registered in written form - under the condition it is not the only source, but is confirmed by other sources (archives, other publications, archeological findings etc.). If, as I suppose, wikipedia respects these rules, this means the solution for the case has to be in line with them. Am I right? Aflis (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aflis, not sure if you're responding to me or to something that RGC said; pardon me if the latter. Oral tradition isn't suitable as a source for an encyclopedia article; it can be a great primary source, especially in a field like cultural studies, but it's not a solid secondary source. If we're using it, we need a secondary source (something solid, preferably from an academic publisher) that examines oral tradition and draws conclusions from it. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also not sure who the ball was meant for, but seeing that I have a bat in my hand, let me step up to the crease. I said some things to Ndandulalibingi here, don't know if that is what Aflis is referring to. But let me copy it over for the sake of rounding off the matter here:

• On oral sources, of course they are important. All information starts off as oral or personal observation, personal experience etc. Then if it is found to be good it goes through a process of verification. To cite one example, your oral history tells you that the Mbunda in the DRC interacted with the Luba and and Lunda states. But did you verify the oral tradition? If you had, you would have found that he Luba Kingdom did not come into being until the late 1500s and the Lunda Kingdom not until the mid-1600s. The same goes for trusting one single source: If you have one source that says the sky is red, but 25 that say it is blue, I think it is best to question the one that says it is red. I am referring to your fanciful day-dreaming about the Mbunda coming from Axum in Sudan.
• You are more than welcome and I am more than willing to work with you. There is lots that can be done. We can even include some of the Mbunda oral history PROVIDED we keep it to one place, and it is clearly labelled as such and is balanced by facts. You could create a section on beliefs, customs, ceremonies, We could even create a new separate article on Mbunda culture, using good examples to guide us, such as Culture of Japan and Culture of the Cook Islands. It is all about working within the framework and there are enough people willing to help.

I thank you both for your help. I also thank Ndandulalibingi for accepting my outstretched hand and that he is eager to make a fresh break of it. Ndapandula. Within a few months we shall have the future Culture of the Mbunda as a good article. Uteke uwa, boa noite. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My remarks above were mainly a reaction to Nyttend's stating that he had cut "tons of unsourced information", which seemed to imply that he did not consider oral sources as sources at all. I am glad we have now apparently a consensus on their being sources which (like any other source....) can be used under certain conditions. In other words: that here wikipedia abides by the rules of the academic world. - I am delighted there is another (even more important) consensus, i.e. on the willingness of the people involved to work together. I am afraid that, for the reason given earlier, I shall be the weekest link in this cooperation, but I shall try and do my best. Aflis (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aflis, thanks for your continued input notwithstanding your bigger concerns. Cutting "tons of unsourced information" is the right thing to do. It is not burnt, it is not destroyed, it is merely taken from public view. The WP is not a draft, it is a published work. Any time a reader accesses an article, he or she expects to find information that is ready for comsumption. Any one of us can still pull up the old version of the file and work on it and put back any of the information we feel should be there once properly processed, verified, cross-checked and referenced with RS. What I like about Kwami is that for him things are back and white - it either is or it is not. If it is not ready for consumption, it does not go in the article.

I have for the better part of the past 6 months been working with local indigenous knowledge systems and practices (LIKSP), working with information such as "if the cows return from pasture still eating all the way back, there will be a drought"/ "people knew if the motsebe tree was flowering, the morokawapula bird was pecking at the trees, and the dung beetles were active rolling dung, it meant that the rains were coming". As true as this might be, it is not scientific. That is not the same as saying it has no value - it has lots of value. Science can then study the different elements and try to find a connection. Even if they cannot find the connection, there is nothing wrong in an acdemic work to include that "in Botswana people believe that .....", but care is taken to make sure it is not presented as a fact, but that it is clearly marked as a belief. One final observation - it is one thing to pass on information about on-going realities, situations, circumstances, etc, such as the weather, livestock, customs etc. But this is quite different from accepting something that happened in 1400s.

Also, to work here, one has to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is counter-productive and counter-intuitive to have a minute-by-minute account of history of the Mbundas. That is fine for a book, but this is not a book, we don't need to know that two brothers of the royal family fought, UNLESS the fight led to a watershed moment in the history of the Mbunda people. I do recall reading on talkpages you yourself more than two years ago pointing out that the articles were too long. If I see a 2-page history of the Mbunda, I'll read the whole thing, when it goes to 5 pages, I start skimming, if I see it is ten pages, I'll read the intro and move on.

But yes, we have made progress and are ready to star working together at improving the information. I am sure that you will still be able to contribute a lot too. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't remember the situation, so I hope you don't mind if I don't take any action on it for several hours until I get the chance to familiarise myself with the situation. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know whether you have to submit an article to a list to use the POV check header, I'm a rather new editor myself, but I don't believe you do. I hope this helps Skylord a52 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how to do that. --Macrakis (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day Rui. I am a little lost as to your request. What would you like specifically? I could design a map, based on the Wikipedia mapping standards, for Angola. I believe there are resources online that allow me to produce such a map. As for importing the map from Ezilon, I could be wrong, but importing it creates a issue of copyright problem, since third party use would be conditioned on Ezilon's permission as well. The best solution, is to have someone cede their image without issues of copyright per Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons rules. But, then again, I tend to donate my content wholeheartedly, and have little experience importing other people's work. There are users on Wikimedia Commons with better experience. I hope I didn't discourage your intent. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put a redirect from that link to Interpersonal relationship as it was the closest article I could find at the time on the topic (conflict is mentioned a few times on the page), but feel free to change if you think there is a better target page, or start a stub etc. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Jtneill. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, no, we can't do it that way — if you look at Wikipedia:Subpages, that falls under disallowed uses #2. Rather, if you want to work on a draft or sandbox version of an article but don't want to hold it in your own userspace, what you are allowed to do is to place it in Talk: or Draft: space instead of articlespace. In this case, draft: would be more appropriate since the article and its associated talk page don't already exist — I'll move it to Draft:Culture of the Mbunda people for you now. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ludwig von Mises, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Just saying the template seems "totally unneccessary" is insufficent. Thank you.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the Horse article, you recently left the following edit summary - " then don't knee-jerk, find a PROPER place for it. Take the trouble to read before reverting and you will see it does not fit there)" The tone of this seems overly aggressive and contains uppercase which is usually viewed as shouting and improper conduct on WP. Please tone down your edit summaries.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure why you took the thread over to my Talk page, but I will reply here. I was thinking of what is stated at WP:SHOUT, particularly, "CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate." Edit summaries are supposed to be neutral, so any kind of over emphasis would not be appropriate. If you feel really strongly about something, it is better to take it to the Talk page where there is more scope for raising your concern.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Could you please look at the page "Proposed State Mergers" because apparently someone is adding things in the current proposals that should not be there such as a Greater Germany. thanks tom991

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you should review the Union of Sovereign States article before comparing it with a ethereal proposal by who-knows-who-is about uniting USA & Canada, so lets be serious, please. The Union of Sovereign States was a serious proposal by Mikhail Gorbachev when he still was the leader of the USSR, the proposal was discussed at the higher levels (Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union) and approved in 1991 on referendums on 9 USSR republics. Apparently, the only reason why the USS was not implemented was because the weakness of Gorbachev, wich ended with the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. So please dont remove USS from the list, as it fits the conditions to be on that list. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 16:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I do not have time to deal with this topic at the moment but I might take a look at it in future. I made some edits on that particular article at the moment when it was considered for deletion (December last year). You are right, most of it is from first sources I found online but I don't think it is direct translation. As for the style I actually don't see any problem with it? Maybe there might be some issues with language since English is not my native language, but I don't think it is huge problem for such a marginal importance article that have only few sentences. Hope you have great time and thanks for writing.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia!

TL;DR: I made a change to a sentence you wrote, and wanted to run it by you... thanks :3

Wall of text follows:

Thanks for improving the World News Network article last year (this edit)!

I've made some changes to that sentence, and just wanted to run them by you since you wrote the previous version.

Before your changes, the sentence read: "It was featured in Forbes's "Best of the Web" in 2000, being commended for its scope, while being criticised for not clearly indicating the quality of its content."

Your rewrite: "It was featured in Forbes's "Best of the Web" in 2000, being commended for its scope, while being criticised for having too many links, but "little guidance as to which are good"."

I've changed it to: "It was featured in Forbes's "Best of the Web" in 2000, being commended for its scope, while being criticised for having "little guidance as to which" of the many links it provides are valuable."

Honestly I'm not sure whether yours or mine is better, I'm having second thoughts now, a bit. Anyway, I'm not sure that it was "being criticised for having too many links"... the relevant passage of the source reads: "WORST:Lots of links, but little guidance as to which are good." I think the source is ambiguous about what it's saying: Do they mean "Cons of the site: Too many links, with little indication of quality" (with providing many links being a negative trait), or "Cons of the site: Little indication of the quality of links, despite providing many" (with providing many being a positive trait), or "Cons of the site: Little indication of the quality of the many links it provides" (with providing many being neutral)? I think I've rephrased it in a neutral way, which allows for any of the interpretations; I suppose readers can check the source for what they think was meant... (I've left a note to this effect as a comment in the source, too, to explain what I was trying to go for.)

If you think I'm wrong in my interpretation of the source (it's late at night for me and I'm probably stupid), please by all means revert me :). Any other thoughts / suggestions / changes are likewise most appreciated :3

Anyway, thanks again for your help, and sorry for the wall of text! Best wishes, Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Goldenshimmer. I am not sure where the doubt comes in — "WORST:Lots of links, but little guidance as to which are good." is pretty clear to me, no ambiguity at all. The negative criticism is the second part ("little guidance as to which are good"), the rest ("Lots of links") is the context for the criticism, but does not alter anything - they could have jsut said "there is little guidance as to which are of the links are any good". It is like saying about a new store that you see for the first time - "they have lots of interesting-looking gadgets, but no information on whether these have any practical value".

I believe the way I had it solves the issue.

Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for writing back! :) Yeah, I was getting all confused, sorry. I think the part of the wording that is unclear is the phrase "too many" — that usually means "more than there should be". Instead I think what is meant is just "many".

On further reflection I'd just remove the word "too" from your wording, leaving it to read: "It was featured in Forbes's "Best of the Web" in 2000, being commended for its scope, while being criticised for having many links, but "little guidance as to which are good"." Does that seem like a reasonable suggestion?

Thank you so much for your help! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rui! I think we've met before, but I can't quite place where.

Would you be able to translate the lead (only five paragraphs!) of South American dreadnought race into Portuguese for that Wikipedia? It's an important article in modern Brazilian political history, and no one's gotten to it in the three years it has been online.

Related tangent: if you haven't tried the content translation beta feature, it makes translating much easier. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reference to your revert on my addition to Afrikaners during the Post-apartheid era: "Meaningless addition. A one-liner tangential reference to Afrikaners in a 17-page paper hardly counts as evidence of anything. Not to mention the starting error of "mixed approach" entirely different from "dual approach"." I disagree. A paper by a highly respected and regarded academic such as Mamdani on African social relationships and ethnic groups, even though you might fell that the mention is 'tangential' (use of the word I feel is misused in this case but that is a minior issue) is NOT at "meaningless addition" but rather added a greater level of context and understanding of the subject in question. And such I feel it should be re-added to the article. I can however see your point about 'duel approach' being a better way to put it than 'mixed approach'.--Discott (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rui Gariel Correia, I have left a response on my talk page.--Discott (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rui, it has been quite awhile, I hope you're doing well. I recently nominated Juan Manuel de Rosas for FAC, but the article is often ignored because of its obscure topic. If you have time and interest, could you review it? I'd be truly grateful. The link to the Featured Article Candidacy page is here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rui. Just to let you know, I have reverted your move of the Angolan election article – in countries with presidential systems, the term "general election" refers to elections in which both the president and the legislature are elected together. Some examples of this are: Burkinabé general election, 2015, Nigerian general election, 2015, Guinea-Bissau general election, 2014, Malawian general election, 2014 etc etc. Cheers, Number 57 13:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem :) Number 57 14:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mbunda Kingdom, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for providing more detail about the history of the article, and your explanation is understood and accepted. However, major changes such as this require a more detailed edit summary than simply mentioning "cleaning up". If you had used the edit summary for your follow-up edit, that would have been more explanatory and would have saved some trouble here. Also, it can help other editors to mention problematic editing situations on the article talk page, so I've put in a short comment about this in Talk:Mbunda Kingdom which you are welcome to add to. Dl2000 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nutella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Rui Gabriel Correia, I'm asking if you could contribute some of your Portuguese language knowledge to the related phrasebook at English Wikivoyage. Wikivoyage is like Wikipedia, but for travel guides. And over at Wikivoyage, we have phrasebooks for travellers to get by in the place where that language is spoken, and the current Portuguese phrasebook is only at outline status (similar to Wikipedia's stub, start, C and B classes). We especially need help improving pronunciations for the translated phrases (using a pseudo-phonetic guide). If you need help at Wikivoyage, visit "Welcome, Wikipedians", ask at the Travellers' pub or at my talk page. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  18:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding ((subst:New Year 1)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page; Coordinator election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2016. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Htonl's talk page.
Message added 08:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

I am a native English speaker, and I assure you that "where" has that usage. Feel free to verify that in grammar books and dictionaries. It's shorter, terser, and for what it's worth more elegant than the clunky "in which", complete with overtones of Churchillian parliamentary invective ("This is a phenomenon up with which I will not put."). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get paid by native English speakers to proofread and improve what they write. I've been an English-language journalist, language trainer, proofreader, sub, editor, translator into English etc etc for decades. Feel free to ask for a copy of my CV. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure your credentials are impeccable. You just happen not to have improved things much here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the "potential", the point there is that an actual predator of a warning-coloured animal presumably doesn't care about the warning or the poison: thus, cuckoos eat cinnabar moth caterpillars, aposematic stripes and all. The animals the caterpillar is signalling to are those that potentially might start eating it, only to discover (too late) that it wasn't worth doing. I am in general VERY careful with my use of english in articles, and while all of us make mistakes, when I draft something in an article lead I mostly choose words on purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to discuss the use of the term "potential", but as I opened the article now I saw that you have already changed it, which would indicate that you have already made up your mind and that further debate is meaningless. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately this editor's sole work on WP seems to be to promote Dinesh Subasinghe - I'm not certain whether there is a COI or that he is just a big fan. A lot of the work is unreferenced, which is why I've been keeping an eye on these edits. Good to know I'm not the only one. Dan arndt (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Always nice to hear from a fellow editor - surprised we haven't crossed paths before. Dan arndt (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I wanted to ask why the unification of Romania and Moldova does not qualify to be mentioned under the current list of proposed state mergers? It fits the definition: it is a proposed merger or union of two existing states (Romania and Moldova) to form an unified sovereign state (Romania). Thanks in advance for your reply. Best regards, Mentatus (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until bodies of sovereignity of two or more countries enter into discussion about a merger, it is NOT a proposal. Have the authorities in Romania and Moldova held any such talks? If the answer in no, then there is not proposal. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I see, you meant that it is not an official proposal, either by the entities in question or by another official body (e.g. as the Annan Plan for Cyprus, which was a United Nations proposal). In that case, I would make this clearer in the header of the article. Cheers, Mentatus (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human height, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudanese Civil War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rui- Thanks for your correction to the incorrect translation in Cortado. Do you think the cortado's "cutting" applies specifically to bitterness? My impression was that it was simply diluting the coffee with milk. For example, in English we might say the whiskey is cut one-to-one with soda, without there being any implication that the soda is lessening some unfavorable aspect of the whiskey. ¡Salud!, Eric ^talk 03:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the whole chunk of text since you objected. However, as you said, Wikipedia is not a playground - that means neither you nor I are justified in misusing in-text templates. Template:Who is specifically for problems where content it not attributed to a specific source. It is NOT for tagging a particular source as problematic. There are at least three other inline templates that could be used to challenge the reliability of a source, Template:Lopsided, Template:Better source, and Template:Unreliable source. Restoring a misused template and telling the other editor to "fix it" to me does not seem constructive. If you have a problem with the content, fine, but so then why, after I reverted your edit because the wrong template was used, did you not simply add a more appropriate template? In retrospect, I should've simply put in the correct template, but since I don't really have a problem with the source, why should the burden be on ME to put in the correct template?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The core policy for this kind of thing is WP:ALTACC. Has the user gone past 3RR between the accounts, or voted multiple times in discussions, or other stuff of the sort? The big problem with multiple usernames is that they're routinely used to make it look like more than one person is involved, but as one userpage redirects to another, and the third username is the user's full name, people aren't going to think that the accounts are operated by different people. More details? Let me know; I'm not trying to dismiss you. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what nl:wp policy is in this matter, but none of the things you mention are at all in violation of en:wp policy on multiple accounts. You've made serious accusations without evidence; as WP:WIAPA notes, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are a kind of personal attack. Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the content that was on that page before?

I don't quite understand your meaning. There are no deleted edits in the history of Panamagate, and after checking the logs, I don't believe that a previous Panamagate page was moved somewhere else. Could you help me understand better? Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nyttend, It is all very confusing. I also arrived at the same conclusion as you, but I understand less of these technicalities and have in the past seen cases where the page history is blanked/ eliminated, so — though I can see that from the logs — I am still left wondering. Early on in the evolution of the story, in various places in the batch of articles relating to the Panama Papers there were references to "Panamagate", including in the "See also" sections. In the meantime lots has happened so it becomes time consuming to pinpoint anything. All I found without spending more time on it is that the "See also" section has been removed from Panama Papers. What is odd is that where it was linked, the links were in blue - so what was it pointing to? As for this "Panamagate", it was there long before news broke on the Panama Papers.

By the looks of it, I am not the only one confused:

• "From what I gather, "Panamagate" and "Panama Papers" are actually two distinct controversies." [3]
• "Panamagate does not belong in the lead and should not be bolded as a common name. It is a rather obscure term used to describe a political scandal in Malta in March. It has very loose connections to the Panama Papers leak of April." [4]

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2016 News Hello everyone, welcome to the June 2016 GOCE newsletter. It's been a few months since we sent one out; we hope y'all haven't forgotten about the Guild! Your coordinators have been busy behind the scenes as usual, though real life has a habit of reducing our personal wiki-time. The May backlog reduction drive, the usual coordinating tasks and preparations for the June election are keeping us on our toes! May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's record-setting backlog reduction drive. Of the 29 people who signed up, 16 copyedited at least one article, 197 copyedits were recorded on the drive page, and the copyedit backlog fell below 1,500 for the first time! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz will occur from 12 June through 18 June; the themes will be video games and Asian geography. Coordinator elections: It's election time again; how quickly they seem to roll around! Nominations for the next tranche of Guild coordinators, who will serve a six-month term that begins at 00:01 UTC on 1 July and ends at 23:59 UTC on 31 December, opens at 00:01 UTC on 1 June and closes at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. Voting takes place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. If you'd like to assist behind the scenes, please consider stepping forward; self-nominations are welcomed and encouraged. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; remember it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola, te escribo en español porque dices dominarlo y es mi lengua materna. Me gustaría que escribieras algo más sobre los países en que has estado, especialmente Leshoto y sus deportistas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untipoahi (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Mr Correia, sorry to hear about this and thanks for letting me know. I have added a ref to a little note in the The Namibian. Best wishes, Msrasnw

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter. >>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<< July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever. August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Será que poderias traduzir este artigo do português para o inglês? Att (Saudações Brasileiras).187.104.25.5 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olá 187.104.25.5. Gostaria que se identificasse. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What? 187.20.86.222 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

??? Qual foi a parte que nao entendeu? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Just wanted to chat about a recent change to the article Environmental racism in Europe. While I see your point, I disagree with the edit. The subject of the article is environmental racism in Europe, so it needs to define what that context is right away (aka who, what, when, where, why). The definition of environmental racism follows. For example, an article on racism in Canada would not begin with a definition of racism. It would begin with a description of who, what, when, where, why affected by racism in Canada, perhaps followed by various legal and / or other definitions of racism to help clarify the context.

Thanks,Sturgeontransformer (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. We seem to disagree on the correct format for titles of short stories in the English language Wikipedia. The lede of Jack London mentions several short stories. According to WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Minor works, the titles of minor works are set off by double quote marks. This was the case at the Jack London article until you changed the double quote mark style to italics. Wikipedia's Manual of Style prescribes double quote marks as the proper rendition for the titles of short stories. I have restored the original punctuation. Please read the indicated section of the MoS, including the examples. In addition, if you examine Wikipedia articles that mention short stories, you will find that the double quote style is used throughout. We can discuss this further, but I am not sure what more can be said. If you still disagree, we can ask for a third opinion. — Neonorange (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles don't need citations in the lede if they are supported by citations in the main body. This was the point of me referring to WP:CITELEAD. If there are any statements in the lede that aren't supported by citations in the main body please use Template:Citation needed. Or better still, boldly remove the offending statements. Adding Template:Refimprove to the top of an article that contains 112 references looks like nothing more than WP:DRIVEBYTAG. As an experienced editor you should know better.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Talk:Koneswaram temple.
Message added 20:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful! >>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<< Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating! September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words). October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page. Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. You have new messages at Katangais's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Egyptian Mau page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be grateful if you could explain to me your objection to the use of Jesse James as a comparator in the introduction to the article on the Brazilian bandit Lampião.

I will give you my reasons for including it. Lampião is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world. I am educated to PhD level and have a long-standing interest in history - I have had a number of articles on Napoleonic history published - and I had not heard of him at all until I chanced, by accident, upon a biography of him in English. I would add that I have known number of Brazilians as work colleagues, and my wife travelled extensively through Brazil in her student days, so I am not unusually ignorant of Brazilian history or culture. This being the case, the inclusion of a comparable figure, a notorious bandit very widely known in the English-speaking world, strikes me as being useful. That Jesse James did not operate banditry on anything like the scale that Lampião did merely emphasises lack of notice that Lampião has gained outside the Portuguese-speaking world. Urselius (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need not "explain" "my objection", since I have no objection, only a proper logical justification, as already presented in the edit summary accompanying my intial edit. The justification presented is a well-known element of editorial policy to reduce the usually Western bias when such examples are used. I can tell you now that inlcuding Jesse James will mean nothing to 95% of Wikipedia users. The fact that you "had not heard of him at all" is all the mnore reason to not include such comparators, because, just like you had never heard of Lampião, it might just be that there are 20 other such individuals out there that you have never heard of. So perhaps we can dig them up and list them all, all 20 of them. As an author of history articles with a PhD, you would know that doing so would be untenable, uncalled for and just plain messy. Also as an author of history articles with a PhD, you might be familiar with the concept of target audience. This is not one of your articles for your audience of readers of French history, this is the Wikipedia, catering to a worldwide audience. Perhaps reading this might be elucidative. You might to specifically pay attention to this section. I for one do not intend to waste a minute further on this. Have a great day, "passa bem", as the Brazilians would say. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course you do not have to reply to any question addressed to you, there is no compulsion, however, it is usually considered polite to do so. We are not solely addressing a world-wide audience, this is the English language Wikipedia, therefore we are addressing an audience of English-speakers (plus those learning English). Are you aware of how many English language feature-films or TV programmes there are about Lampião? There are none, certainly none that I have discovered. In contrast, there are dozens of English language films and TV shows about, or incorporating significant references to, Jesse James (see here: http://www.seacoastnh.com/history/jesse-james-films/jesse-james-complete-movie-list/ ). In the English-speaking world Jesse James is a very well-known bandit. Comparing Lampião to Jesse James in the introduction of the article immediately helps the average English-speaker, to whom Lampião and Cangaço would mean nothing, contextualise the subject of the article. Obrigado pela sua bondade em responder a minha pergunta. Urselius (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. You misunderstood "not needing to explain", it refers to already having done so. But look, it is not a big issue, in all likelihood it is quite possible to tomorrow I will wake u and fully agree with you. I follow a rule about reverting - I never revert when I have reason to believe that the edit was made by a serious editor, unless it is someone that I know routinely adds objectionable content. Therefore, I first look up the history, very time-consuming, as you would know, and if I see that it was added by a serious editor I contact that editor or place a request for clarification. This is not a WP 'rule', just something that I try to live by out of respect for the work of others. So, yes, I feel aggrieved when someone reverts my edits because they feel different about a detail. Obviviously if I mess up, someone should revert me, I have no problem with that. And reverting anything I do is also within your right, I just feeel that the 'revert' button should be used with discretion. Other than that, what the hell, if you ever happpen to drop in in Johannesburg, drop me a line, we will have a drink. Um abraço, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Conakry page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter! >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part. January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words). February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive. Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated! Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone." Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rui Gabriel Correia. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Culture of the Mbunda people".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olá Rui. I am not quite familiar with what you are trying to do. I implemented the Geobox/infobox template in Lisbon following the schema defined on that article. The issue with the "free-type" categories took a bit for me to understand, in the beginning, but then I realized that there were two types: the free content itself (for example, "free3") and a category designator (for example, "free3_type"). The weirder thing was the fact that the free-type class started as null (for example, "free" and "free_type") followed by consecutive numbering "free1" and "free1_type", then "free2" and "free2_type", etc., etc. That is all I know, since I was not envovled in other situations. Thats is all I know. I am sorry I can not understand what you are attempting to do.^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference that exists here is that these are TWO different "infoboxes". I used the Geobox format, while some have adopted the limited "Infobox Municipality PT", which are totally different creatures. In fact, I am not inclined to use the Portugal-specific templates, as they are limited and do not provide the detailed formatting and different visual. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Não colega. Naõ estas maluco. haha ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the "heads up" at Boxer Rebellion. It's hard to keep NPOV balance describing a situation where great wrongs were committed all around, and your fresh but experienced view is very helpful.ch (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you that it takes at least two to edit war; I have left a message for the other user at WP:RFP to stop reverting; I hope he'll go to talk now. And I have no opionion on the content, btw. Lectonar (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Lectonar. Thanks for the intervention. I do appreciate. It is not in my nature to edit war, as you can easily see from my logs, but I take your point. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rui Gabriel Correia,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Portuguese to English Wikipedia?

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Portuguese article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Portuguese , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Portuguese. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Ciência_Hoje
2. Centro_de_Pesquisa_e_Desenvolvimento_em_Telecomunicações
3. The_Potenji_River_Conference
4. Convent_of_São_Francisco_(Vila_Franca_do_Campo)

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Portuguese article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the ((Pass)) and ((Fail)) templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate. To see the full list of articles, please go to WP:CXT/PTR.

If you can help, please ((ping)) me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Elinruby (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Pass ✓ Pass ✗ Fail ✗ FailĠReply[reply]

I wrote in the article that holly and hazel are trees, which is undeniably true, and I've written "flower and tree..." in the relevant places. This is a compromise, so I'm not sure what you are now objecting to. These two names are excellent examples of plant names, and they serve a useful function in the article in not being "vegetables", and indeed not garden flowers either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• O mesmo já não posso dizer eu de si. Como deve calcular ninguém é pago para isto e a dedicação em artigos varia. E, se está preocupado com as fontes basta procurá-las, como no caso de census, em vez de vandalizar/grafitar artigos e chatear pessoas que não conhece de lado algum e falando inglês quando fala português. Acha que as suas atitudes caem bem em alguém? pense bem e resolva os seus problemas pessoais e não aborreça as pessoas. --Pedro (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]