AlexCovarrubias (talk | contribs) |
AlexCovarrubias (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
::Joao puedo asegurarte que no tengo nada en contra de Brasil. A mi me gusta Brasil. De lo que estoy en contra es que hay brasileños que a fuerza quieren poner a su país como si fuera lo mejor de Latino América cosa que no es cierto. No estoy diciendo que México sea lo mejor, pero según los indicadores internacionales, tiene mejor situación social y económica que Brasil. Tu haz tomado actitudes contra México porque piensas que yo tengo algo contra Brasil. Eso no es cierto. Colaboro con Wikipedia desde 2005 y he aprendido mucho de como se deben hacer las cosas. Algunos de mis artículos han sido borrados y algunas de mis ediciones también, porque no ponía fuentes (sources). Yo no fui la persona que nominó a Brasil para quitarlo de Good Article. Fue otra persona, yo solo apoyé porque es verdad, aún le falta al artículo, tiene muchos problemas y no solo lo digo yo sino todos los que firmaron. Como sea, cualquier cosa que desees agregar hazlo de manera NEUTRAL sin desear dar una mejor imagen de Brasil de lo que ya es. Pero más importante, agrega fuentes. Como ya te dije, si quieres agregar a Brasil en el artículo de Developed Country hazlo, pero ponlo separado de México, porque no es lo mismo. Si puedes agregar fuentes también hazlo, porque ya han quitado a Brasil de la lista muchas veces y seguro alguien más lo hará. Es todo. <font color="#CE1126">[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Alex]]</font>''<font color="#006847">[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Covarrubias]]</font>'' [[Image:Flag of Mexico.png|15px]] <sup><font size="1" color="green">[[User_talk:AlexCovarrubias|( Talk? )]]</font></sup> 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
::Joao puedo asegurarte que no tengo nada en contra de Brasil. A mi me gusta Brasil. De lo que estoy en contra es que hay brasileños que a fuerza quieren poner a su país como si fuera lo mejor de Latino América cosa que no es cierto. No estoy diciendo que México sea lo mejor, pero según los indicadores internacionales, tiene mejor situación social y económica que Brasil. Tu haz tomado actitudes contra México porque piensas que yo tengo algo contra Brasil. Eso no es cierto. Colaboro con Wikipedia desde 2005 y he aprendido mucho de como se deben hacer las cosas. Algunos de mis artículos han sido borrados y algunas de mis ediciones también, porque no ponía fuentes (sources). Yo no fui la persona que nominó a Brasil para quitarlo de Good Article. Fue otra persona, yo solo apoyé porque es verdad, aún le falta al artículo, tiene muchos problemas y no solo lo digo yo sino todos los que firmaron. Como sea, cualquier cosa que desees agregar hazlo de manera NEUTRAL sin desear dar una mejor imagen de Brasil de lo que ya es. Pero más importante, agrega fuentes. Como ya te dije, si quieres agregar a Brasil en el artículo de Developed Country hazlo, pero ponlo separado de México, porque no es lo mismo. Si puedes agregar fuentes también hazlo, porque ya han quitado a Brasil de la lista muchas veces y seguro alguien más lo hará. Es todo. <font color="#CE1126">[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Alex]]</font>''<font color="#006847">[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Covarrubias]]</font>'' [[Image:Flag of Mexico.png|15px]] <sup><font size="1" color="green">[[User_talk:AlexCovarrubias|( Talk? )]]</font></sup> 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::(Translation) Joao I can assure you I have nothing against Brazil. I like Brazil. What I'm against of is that some brazilians want to portrait the country as it was the best in Latin America, which is not true. I'm not saying "Mexico is better", but according to some development indicators, it has a better social and economic situation than Brazil. You have taken some attitudes against Mexico because you believe I'm against Brazil. That's not true. I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 and I've learnt a lot avout how to do things properly. Some of my articles and edits have been deleted, because I didn't add sources. Also I wasn't the person that nominated the article Brazil for delist from the Good Article list. I did supported the delisting because it has a lot of problems and I'm not the only one that says that but everyone that signed. Well, anything you want to add proceed, just do it in a NEUTRAL way, not trying to improve Brazil's image at any cost, but most importantly add sources. As I already said if you want to add Brazil to the article [[Developed country]], well, do it. However I might warn you that it was deleted several times in the past and I think somebody will object and delete it again. That's all. <font color="#CE1126">[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Alex]]</font>''<font color="#006847">[[User:AlexCovarrubias|Covarrubias]]</font>'' [[Image:Flag of Mexico.png|15px]] <sup><font size="1" color="green">[[User_talk:AlexCovarrubias|( Talk? )]]</font></sup> 00:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:53, 12 May 2007
en-2 | This user can contribute with an intermediate level of English. |
es-2 | Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel intermedio de español. |
Archived
Archived discution. JoãoFelipe ( Let's talk! ) 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hola
Hey! Hello. It is wierd that you modeled both your signature and user page introduction after mines. Wierd. :o AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course you can use them. I never said you couldn't. It is just weird, specially the page intro. Buenas tardes. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Brazil Page
Acho que dessa vez você fez um bom trabalho com as fotos. Se depender de mim, a página fica como está quanto às imagens.
Não sei se posso ajudar muito com elas, pois prefiro concentrar minha atenção nos textos. Já escrevi a introdução, a seção de "leis", e agora estou pensando em reservar uma tarde de domingo para reforçar as seções de "divisões administrativas" e de "geografia".
Abraços! Sparks1979 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Portal
Hi. Sorry, but I must reply in English, given that this is the English-language Wikipedia and communications here are public and must be accessible to all English-reading users. You will notice I reverted the Portal page. While the layout you presented is interesting, there are several problems, which I could not correct at this time. If you can fix them, then I suppose we can consider a trial run of it. So here are the problems:
- In the "In the news" section: you again used that page you created later on. That can't be done. The original page is usable, and it has a history of almost two years of editing attached to it. Further, when you reinstated it, you didn't notice that the mirror page you had created was outdated by far (you created it mirroring the "In the news" page of March 13, whereas the actual page has been updated as recently as April 17). You need to use the already-existing "In the news" page.
- The exact same thing goes for the "Did you Know" section. The mirror you created seems to be incomplete in relation to the present page, and the same argument of it having almost 2 years of history apply
- As a matter of fact, that argument applies to all pages: please use the already-existing pages for the sections.
- It is essential that the Portal links to the projects and efforts relating to the topic (in this case, Brazil). Notice that the "Help out" section contains a link to the Brazil WikiProject page and to the Categories on Brazil-related stubs and articles. Your version seemed to be missing this
- In a Portal, we use Featured articles and pictures, unless those do not exist — when I created the Portal, in mid-2005, there were no FA articles on Brazilian themes, which is why we had a "Selected article" instead; that is no longer the case. We are currently using the Mario de Andrade article, but we could consider a rotation of all the featured articles in existence. You had instated a "Selected article" section instead of this, which is not ideal for a Portal.
- The code is not ideal: the width is exceeding the page's own width, making the Portal more difficult to read. I suppose this should be easily fixable by modifying the wiki code, but the main goal would be to keep the Portal within the page width, so that we don't need to slide a bar to the right in order to be able to read the righthand corner of the Portal.
Finally, you need to make a more general proposal about changing the Portal's appearance, preferably in the Portal's own talk page, before doing it. Notice that since the Portal's creation you are the only person ever to think that it needed to be changed. All other comments over time have been in the exact opposite direction: that the Portal looks very good as it is (it was created inspired in the layout of the Australia Portal in 2005). Cheers, Redux 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- What follows is a translation of the post above into Portuguese, at the user's request:
Oi. Note que eu reverti o Portal novamente para a versão anterior. Não que o formato que você sugeriu não seja bom, mas há vários problemas que precisariam ser resolvidos antes que se pudesse considerar usá-lo:
1) Antes de mais nada, você teria que iniciar uma discussão na página de discussão do Portal. Desde que criei o Portal, em meados de 2005, você foi o único a considerar que o Portal precisaria ser modificado; todos os demais comentários feitos sobre a qualidade do Portal têm sido no sentido diametralmente oposto. Assim sendo, seria preciso obter algum tipo de consenso no sentido dessa modificação, pois o consenso existente está a favor do atual formato (copiado do Portal da Austrália em 2005). E há um segundo ponto de grande importância nisto: esta discussão precisa ser em inglês, pois esta é a Wikipédia em língua inglesa, e as discussões precisam ser acessíveis a todos que aqui contribuem — como referenciado por Kafziel abaixo, você talvez prefira contribuir com a Wikipédia em Português, se não se sente à vontade para contribuir em inglês.
2) A subpágina referente à seção "In the news" que você usou foi, novamente, aquela criada por você recentemente. A página que deve ser usada terá de ser, sempre, a já existente, que possui quase 2 anos de história de edição a ela ligada (você também não reparou, em sua última modificação, que a página que você criou já se encontrava desatualizada em relação à subpágina original, que fora atualizada em 17 de abril, enquanto a outra página fora criada em 13 de março).
3) O argumento sobre utilizar, sempre, as páginas já existentes aplica-se a todas as demais instâncias, a não ser que você estivesse criando algo novo — o que, de novo, deve ser feito apenas após uma discussão na página de discussão do Portal.
4) É essencial que o Portal contenha links para o Wikiproject Brazil e para a lista de artigos e esboços relacionados ao Brasil. A versão que você criou omitia tais links.
5) No Portal, nós usamos somente artigos e imagens que tenham o status de "Featured" (Featured article e Featured image), a não ser que não hajam artigos e/ou imagens que se enquadrem na categoria — quando eu criei o Portal em 2005, não havia artigos sobre temas brasileiros nessa situação, pelo que tivemos, por um tempo, a seção de "Selected article". Como este já não é mais o caso, usamos apenas artigos do tipo "Featured" no Portal.
6) Finalmente, o código wiki usado estava fazendo com que a largura (width) do Portal excedesse a da página. Isto não é, em si, grave, mas torna a leitura do Portal mais difícil, pois faz necessário deslizar a barra horizontal (que do contrário sequer existiria) para que se possa ler o canto direito do Portal.
Isto é o que eu listara, em inglês, no meu comentário acima. Devo enfatizar, no entanto, que não será possível conduzir esta ou qualquer outra discussão nesta Wikipédia em Português. Elas devem ser em inglês necessariamente. Saudações, Redux 23:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you keep altering the "Did you Know" page to remove facts for no apparent reason and replace that image. So I'll be very blunt: do not do it again, or I will be forced to address it as POV pushing, which is a form of vandalism. Redux 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wish you had commented on this intention beforehand. In your edit summary, you mentioned the evening up of the columns on the main page of the Portal. The problem is, the columns never stay even for too long, because there are variables on the Portal. The main one being the "In the news" section. It's been somewhat static over the last few days, but that will change — in fact, I expect it to change a lot next week, during the Pope's visit to the country. So there's no point in us going through any kind of trouble, and especially not removing content from any section, so as to have the columns match up, because as soon as something is done to other sections, they'll disalign again — and the "In the news" section is not the only variable: every now and then, a category gets deleted, or there might be a change in the "Featured article" section. And depending on how "busy" the news are, the size of this section can vary considerably, and any effort made in order to try to match up the columns will just go to waste the minute that section is updated. Misalignment (desalinhamento das colunas) is simply inherent to the format. I know because I went through all this when I first started the Portal. Then I realized it was impossible to keep the columns aligned constantly, so now I just try to keep them as close together as possible, but never by sacrificing content. Basically, the only way to "solve" this problem would be to come up with a new format, not using parallel columns. But as long as we are using parallel columns, there's no use in balancing them thoroughly at any given time, since a significative update in the news, which is usually a frequent event (I do them, so I should know), will just make it all for nothing. Column alignment simply has to take a secondary role in our concerns about the Portal, because it is like a "perfect score" in bowling: it can happen sometimes, but it's not something we can plan on, or that we can expect to happen too often. And we can't worry about this at the expense of the main goal of the Portal, which is to convey as much as we can about the object of it (in this Portal's case, Brazil). Redux 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Latin America
Joao, I have reverted your changed because of the following reasons:
- Long images alter the page layout. That is squared pictures are better. Please don't change this, because it significantly messes up the layout.
- GDP growth rates must be from the same source to all the countries, only that way it can be neutral and really comparable.
I see you have been accused of adding/removing information in order to favor Brazil. That's called a bias, please refrain from doing this. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't know what you're saying, your English is bad man. Secondly, I'm far from "favoring" Brazil in the article, in fact, that's what I accused you for. What you don't seem to get is that all the GDP growth rates must be from the same source/organization so the table can offer a neutral and really comparable set of information. About the images, don't change them, because long vertical images disrupt the page layout. That's why weeks ago I changed them to squared-shaped ones. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I will try to use an online translator so we can communicate better. Bueno, voy a usar un traductor en línea para poder comunicarnos mejor. I only speak English, Italian and of course Spanish. Eu somente posso falar um poquinho de portugues. Obrigado! AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, voy a hablar en español. Los indicadores de crecimiento del PIB de todos los países, deben ser tomados de la misma fuente y del mismo estudio. ¿Por qué? Porque esto evita discrepancias con lo que cada país diga. Quizá Costa Rica diga que su crecimiento será más grande que lo que dice el Banco Mundial, pero estos son los datos de Costa Rica. En el caso de Brasil, como tu lo dices, son datos de una institución brasileña, lo cual conlleva un bias y evita la neutralidad y la real comparabilidad de la tabla. Puede ser que los datos de crecimiento de Brasil se hayan elevado, al igual se elevaron los de México y los de Chile, pero no podemos incluír información de diferentes fuentes, pues sería incorrecto y no ayuda a la real comparabilidad de la tabla.
La tabla actual presenta datos de la ONU, específicamente de la ECLAC. Por lo tanto son datos de una organización internacional neutral, y no datos internos de un país. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sí, tienes razón. El problema es que la ECLAC no ha revisado las cifras de proyección del PIB para este año 2007. Quizá lo hagan en Junio o Julio, o a mitad del año. Un saludo Joao, y viva Brasil y México. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Can you copy edit the article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Economy of Brazil
Yes, I can help, but not this week. Hari Seldon 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Joao, I don't think it would be good to copy-edit the text from article Economy of Mexico and paste it in Economy of Brazil article. An independent and original article should be created instead. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please use English
Please use English here, even when only posting comments on the talk pages of other users. It is important that everyone be able to understand what you are writing. If you are completely unable to converse in English, there are online translators you can use for simple statements, or you may wish to contribute at the Portuguese Wikipedia instead. Kafziel Talk 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How to translate "bota abaixo"?
Hi, João. I am a native speaker of English, mas eu posso contribuir com um nível médio de português. I started the article for the English Wikipedia about the Vaccine Revolt (Revolta da Vacina) in Rio de Janeiro in 1904.
The Portuguese Wikipedia article says "O prefeito pôs em prática uma ampla reforma urbana, que ficou conhecida como bota abaixo ..."
I'm not sure how to translate "bota abaixo" into English. Do you have any ideas about this? You can reply on my Talk page. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, João. I think that this coloquial expression is difficult to translate. :-) -- Writtenonsand 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Emerging Markets and elsewhere
Joao, stop pushing your POV in the different articles where Mexico is included, more notable in Emerging markets and in the template international power. Nobody but you has changed the page since the inclusion of BRIMC and BRIC. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Joao I can't belive what you did yesterday. You changed several articles to depict Brazil "better" than Mexico. That's not right. Articles were already balanced and I find it offensive and very POV forking. I'll revert what is necessary. Please don't do this. I thought you came back as a real serious collaborator. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- BRIMC is a term that was already in use in the economical world to denote the leading emerging economic powers where investment in bonds are more redituable. Also, Goldman Sachs Bank started using the term (and claimed to have "invented it" as they did with BRIC). It is a perfectly valid term since it includes the 5 leading raising economic powers (see G8+5). Mexico's importance must not be under recognized only because the term BRIC was invented before BRIMC. In that case we should use G8+5 instead of BRIC.
- About the article "Developed country". It was NOT me who deleted Brazil from the list. They also agreed to delete other countries such as Argentina. I don't know why since I did not participate in the discussion but nobody has opposed its deletion, until you. I don't believe it is necessary to unite Mexico and Brazil because the two cases are very different. As another user told you, for example, GDP doesn't affect development, but GDP per capita does. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Translation (just in case)
- BRIMC es un término que ya era utilizado en el mundo financiero para nombrar a las potencias económicas emergentes donde la inversión en bonos es más redituable. El banco Goldman Sachs empezó ya también a user el término (aunque ahora ellos dicen que "lo inventaron", como inventaron BRIC). Es un término completamente válido porque incluye a las 5 naciones líderes en desarollo económico (ver G8+5). La importancia de México no debería ser despreciada solo porque el término BRIC fue creado antes que BRIMC. En ese caso sería mejor usar G8+5 en su lugar.
- Acerca del artículo "Developed country". No fui yo quien borró a Brasil de la lista. Los usuarios también acordaron borrar otros países como Argentina. No sé por qué ya que no participé en la discusión, pero nadie se opuso a su borrado, sólo tu hasta ahora. No creo que sea necesario unir a México y Brasil en el artículo porque los dos casos son muy diferentes. Como otro usuario te dijo, por ejemplo el PIB no afecta el desarrollo, sino el PIB per cápita. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Brazil real figure is $ 87,270 millions according to CIA World Factbook. Both the figure in the article and the map you changed have been corrected. Please I invite you to stop editing to "enhance" the perception of Brazil, since adding wrong information on propouse is considered a type of vandalism. I know you can be reasonable and a good editor. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are right. You did not changed the article, but YOU DID changed the map. The CIA is an intelligence agency, they are investigate the numbers. It is recognized as a reliable source. However the other figure for Brazil was unsourced. And I'm not favouring Mexico. The number (figure) for Mexico was also not updated. It is in the CIA list, check it. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Joao, stop being uncivil (Joao, no seas agresivo). The update of figures are based in the SOURCE, so it is not vandalism as you called it. Your removal of perfectly sourced information, is in fact, the real vandalism. Please stop or I'd have to report you, and I don't want to. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Joao. If you have the direct source for the other number for Brazil, please add it. It is a requirement that all information must be directly sourced. A list of the websites of every national bank in the world is not a source. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! You must always provide a source if you change something, specially figures. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Economy of Brazil
I wish I could help, but I don't have a lot of time to do the preliminary research. If you can do the research at Banco Central do Brasil, and probably from the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estadística, I can help you out translating and organizing the data. Você pode me falar em português, o entendo perfeitamente, mais falo só um pouquinho i escevo ainda menos. Se você prefere, posso lhe escrever em espanhol. --the Dúnadan 15:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, but I guess I misunderstood you. Do you want me to write the article by myself, or to help you guys out?
- What we did in Economy of Mexico was that several users and me elaborated an outline in the Talk page. I'd suggest you guys do the same thing, since you are from Brazil, you'd have some idea of which topics are relevant (say, agriculture, Mercosur, the car industry, whatever). Then, try to find out which links would work for which topics, and try to see if you can actually extract information from the links. Say, for example, if you are interested in Brazil's current account, try to find whether Banco do Brasil is actually reporting the current account. If it does, then add the link, and we can then extract the information later, and start writing the article. See what I mean? Lack of links is not a problem, it is the design, organization and extraction of information what will take some time.--the Dúnadan 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Joao! I think it is highly offensive that you're copy-pasting parts of the article Economy of Mexico into the article Economy of Brazil. It is not only offensive to Dúnadan and HariSeldon, the editors that developed the article, but wrong and a lack or seriousness. I think you should stop trying to boost the image of Brazil no matter what. Wikipedia has rules and one of them is adding sources for your claims. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
Oi João, blz? Congratulations on the changes you made to the Brazil article... looks great!! I really don't understand why they insist in changing the article to show only favelas, indians, and violence. After all, Brazil isn't only that. The pictures of southern Brazil are awsome. Again, congrats and thanks! Abraços. Luiz Felipe
Brazilian indians
Why did you delete the image of Xavante Indians? It was a beautiful image, very proffesional looking and brightly colorful. Wikipedia is a place where all the points of view must prevail, not only the main view. Your deletion could rise questions about your intentions or even if that was a "racist" behaviour. I have added the picture back. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Mexico
Joao, I'm sorry if I offend you with my following words, but quit being so childish. No other country article in Wikipedia has such a section, and it was removed from the article due to a previous talk, please see archive. Moreover, if you insist in including that section, we'll have to add a similar one to the Brazil article, since crime and especially gun-related deaths and violence is the second highest in the world.
I believe your readdition of that section was only an angry move for my readdition of the Xavante indians image in the Brazil article. If you were upset by that, I have to say I find that very racist, and that's sad. I'm aware of the high prevalence of racism in Brazil but please, just be neutral, there's no need to exclude a group of humans, a group of Brazilians from the article. Above of all, their are also part of Brazilian society and the picture was so professional, so great!. I wish I could have such a colorful picture of Mexican natives, so I could add it to the article Mexico.
I have always been interested in Mexico, Brazil and Latin America since they both are the major regional powers and Latin America their field of influence. It is not new for me. Thanksm and I hope you understand. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok Joao, I understand you didn't know the section was removed because the users agreed to remove it. It's ok. About the racist behaviour in the Brazil article, it's good to hear from you it was not racism. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
List of Brazilian states by....
Olá João Ví as páginas que você criou e as achei MUITO boas, parabéns. Mas elas estão muito separadas. O que você acha de aplicarmos o modelo adotado em European Union member state? Assim poderíamos agrupa-las em uma só página. Ex. Se o leitor quiser listar os estados por população, ele clica em "Population", se quiser por GPD, clica em "GPD", etc. Acho que fica muito mais consistênte. O quê você acha? — Guilherme (t/c) 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sim, pode ficar bom, mais estou um pouco ocupado, se você puder fazer eu ficaria muito grato. Felipe ( talk ) 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Está ótimo, no momento estou trabalhando em Portal:Current events/Brazil, uma página que acabei de criar, ainda há muito trabalho pela frente. Felipe ( talk ) 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delisting Brazil from GA
Joao, you can believe what you want. The article was clearly not a good one. The proof is that I was not the one that nominated it for delisting. Several other editors have already pointed out that the article had major flaws that prevent it from being categorized as a "good article". I supported the delisting because it was so obvious that user Limongi "passed" the GA review just because he is brazilian, and that my friend is called a real POV fork aswell as a conflict of interest. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Felipe, concordo plenamente com você! Fica muito difícil participar do Wikipedia assim... enquanto idiotas desse tipo insistirem em destruir as nossas colaborações. Nesse caso específico deu pra notar claramente que o usuário User:AlexCovarrubias está sempre tentando denegrir a imagem do nosso País (um exemplo é o artigo Regional power e o próprio artigo Brazil). O problema é que não há muito que possamos fazer, a não ser reverter as modificações desse indivíduo. Quanto ao artigo Brazil, eu o re-submeti como "good article candidate"... agora é só esperar-mos pelo review. De qualquer maneira, estamos aí cara. Falou.. Limongi
- Limongi, is because of uncivil and biased users like you that Wikipedia has policies against them. It is as simple as this: you want to add something to an article? then you back it up with sources. That's it. As far as the personal attacks go, I have no comments. All the biased edits will be reverted accordingly. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Joao, I have reverted your edits in the developed countries article. As I told you, Brazil was excluded by talks. If you want to include it again, please do it by consensus and in a separate paragraph. Keep in mind GDP doesn't affect development by itself, but GDP per capita, HDI and the GINI index (gap between richs and poors). I'm sure you want Brazil listed there, but you can't add it just because you want, you need valid reasons. One of the major reasons Brazil was deleted is because its HDI and GDP per capita are expected to remain low even if the GDP doubles by 2050 (accordingly with Goldman Sachs). Also the GINI index for Brazil is high, affecting the real GDP per capita. I hope you understand all this. If you don't you can use Google translator. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Joao, Mexico will be a developed country before Chile and Argentina. And also, I believe Brazil will be a developed country before Chile and Argentina. Why? Because of the GDP. GDP alone doesn't affect development and it is surely something to take into account. Even if Argentina has a higher GDP per capita than Brazil, Brazilian GDP is huge comprared to this one and also Argentina doesn't represent a real political power in the region or in the world. Remember Mexico and Brazil are the only NIC countries and the only Latin American members invited to the meeting of the G8. The only difference is that Mexico is expected to become a developed country before Brazil, that's all. That doesn't mean Brazil is not going to be a developed country. Of course it will be! AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Joao, you need to stop now. If you want to include Brazil in the list, list sources and do it in a separate paragraph. Mexico and Brazil are not the same. However, you might find opposition from editors, since it was agreed to delete Brazil and several other countries from the article. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Re:Portal news
That's not really a problem. More important news get a somewhat longer entry. The key aspect of that template is that everything there is temporary (that is why I don't leave any red links in the entries, incidentally), which means that it might be a little stretched during the Pope's visit, which is a major event, but this will forcibly change relatively quickly. By next week, it should be back to its usual length. Redux 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
Your recent edits in the Economy of Brazil article where really productive. Thanks.Chico 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism and biased edits
Joao your attitude is childish. You must stop now or I'd need to call and administrator to stop you from adding and deleting sourced information, such as in the template where you deleted BRIMC. This is ridiculous, it is so easy for you to add information and prevent it from being deleted: just add sources. If you think "I'm against Brazil" just because I undo your biased-unsourced-non encylopedic edits, fine, believe what you want, but that doesn't give you the "right" to vandalized the pages related to Mexico just because "you're angry". Stop it. This is not a personal anything. It is just a matter of accuracy: add sources. That's all. That's easy.
Joao, debes detener tus actitudes de niño. No me importa si crees que yo trato de dar una mala imagen de Brasil, lo que no es cierto. El que trata de dar una imagen mejor de Brasil eres tú (biased edits) y te enojas porque se borran tus textos. Si deseas agregar cualquier tipo de información, sólo agrega las fuentes, es así de sencillo. Esto NO es personal, y deja de borrar información relacionada con México solo porque estás "enojado". Cualquier cosa que edites y que sea para "mejorar la imagen" de Brasil sin fuentes, será borrada. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh and by the way, as I already said, if you want to add Brasil to the article developed country, proceed. Just do it separately from Mexico. However, I might warn you that somebody is gonna delete it as it was already deleted hundreds of times. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:International power, you will be blocked from editing. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Joao puedo asegurarte que no tengo nada en contra de Brasil. A mi me gusta Brasil. De lo que estoy en contra es que hay brasileños que a fuerza quieren poner a su país como si fuera lo mejor de Latino América cosa que no es cierto. No estoy diciendo que México sea lo mejor, pero según los indicadores internacionales, tiene mejor situación social y económica que Brasil. Tu haz tomado actitudes contra México porque piensas que yo tengo algo contra Brasil. Eso no es cierto. Colaboro con Wikipedia desde 2005 y he aprendido mucho de como se deben hacer las cosas. Algunos de mis artículos han sido borrados y algunas de mis ediciones también, porque no ponía fuentes (sources). Yo no fui la persona que nominó a Brasil para quitarlo de Good Article. Fue otra persona, yo solo apoyé porque es verdad, aún le falta al artículo, tiene muchos problemas y no solo lo digo yo sino todos los que firmaron. Como sea, cualquier cosa que desees agregar hazlo de manera NEUTRAL sin desear dar una mejor imagen de Brasil de lo que ya es. Pero más importante, agrega fuentes. Como ya te dije, si quieres agregar a Brasil en el artículo de Developed Country hazlo, pero ponlo separado de México, porque no es lo mismo. Si puedes agregar fuentes también hazlo, porque ya han quitado a Brasil de la lista muchas veces y seguro alguien más lo hará. Es todo. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Translation) Joao I can assure you I have nothing against Brazil. I like Brazil. What I'm against of is that some brazilians want to portrait the country as it was the best in Latin America, which is not true. I'm not saying "Mexico is better", but according to some development indicators, it has a better social and economic situation than Brazil. You have taken some attitudes against Mexico because you believe I'm against Brazil. That's not true. I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 and I've learnt a lot avout how to do things properly. Some of my articles and edits have been deleted, because I didn't add sources. Also I wasn't the person that nominated the article Brazil for delist from the Good Article list. I did supported the delisting because it has a lot of problems and I'm not the only one that says that but everyone that signed. Well, anything you want to add proceed, just do it in a NEUTRAL way, not trying to improve Brazil's image at any cost, but most importantly add sources. As I already said if you want to add Brazil to the article Developed country, well, do it. However I might warn you that it was deleted several times in the past and I think somebody will object and delete it again. That's all. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)