User talk:Debresser: Difference between revisions

What I do on Wikipedia.

My rewards.

What's up?

I mainly follow up on pages from my watchlist, occasionally adding new pages to it that spiked my interest.

Can you help identify these favicons?

I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.

I collect favicons. At the moment I have over 5400 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.

My 'orphan' favicons

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated: some I found, and a few new ones came along. There's now only 23 of them. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Special characters

{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Didn't work the first time. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This tool, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, it says "TUSC verification failed" on one page, and "Attention : you are already verified!" on another. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleased with this

{{Monthly clean up category}} no longer requires year and monthno parameters! See Category:Orphaned_articles_from_October_2009 for example. Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

Wow! Debresser (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah so there were very long pagenames I didn't know about. I nearly left an over-ride feature in, but it was easy enough to retrofit it. Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

Now I fixed the underlying functions to go to 100 characters... Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Broken Coord

Hi. I'm trying to clear out Category:Coord template needing repair. Some change you made to User:Doco/sandbox/Infobox Ort in Deutschland is causing the instance of that template on User:Doco/sandbox/test2 to interpret

|lat_deg           = 53
|lat_min           = 28
|lon_deg           = 08
|lon_min           = 39

as 531°N 81°E. I'm not clear on the syntax,

{{Coorord|{{#if:{{{lat_min|}}}|<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{lat_min|1}}}}}{{#if: {{{lat_sec|}}}|<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{lat_sec|1}}}}}<includeonly>|</includeonly>N<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{lon_deg|1}}}{{#if:{{{lon_min|}}}|<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{lon_min|1}}}}}{{#if:{{{lon_sec|}}}|<includeonly>|</includeonly>{{{lon_sec|1}}}}}<includeonly>|</includeonly>E<includeonly>|</includeonly>type:{{#switch: {{{Art|}}}

but at a guess it's losing the minutes and appending the "1"s from the seconds to the degree values.

—WWoods (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. My first edit made that a lot better, but still not perfect. At least it has the degrees normal now. The second one added the minutes also. And removed it from the error category. But added it to another error category. :) Debresser (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

{{!}} Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Oh and you probably want to use Cord|1={lat_min}|2={ ... instead of un-numbered paramters. Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

IN fact, use that instead. Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Vandalism by Didiecunha

Shouldn't user Didiecunha finally be blocked due to his repeated vandalism? Pavel Modilaynen (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I might actually agree with that, but Wikipedia policy is not to block that quickly. After all, he is making just a few of those edits a month, and it might be argued that he does so in good faith. Again, I personally am less patient, but that is the rule. If it would get worse, like when he would start an active edit war, then you could report him. But even then it would be hard to get him blocked indefinitely. We'll just have to live with him. At least post a warning on his talkpage, so that you may show afterwards that he had been warned. All the best, Debresser (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wait a second

Oh, I noticed that it was kept separate (I just nominated Category:Templates for deletion templates for merging, though). I've just been correcting links to the TFD page itself. Did I break a category link? If I did, it was an accident. Jafeluv (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't mean to touch category links, only links to the main TFD page. Go ahead and revert if I messed up any category links. Jafeluv (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll withdraw it later if nobody argues to the contrary. I don't think speedily merging and redirecting it would be controversial. By the way, this was an accident – that's what you get for using the search tool without looking closely enough :) Thanks for correcting that. Jafeluv (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I see you've already moved the pages to the correct category. Good job. Jafeluv (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Category question

I am not good on categories, other than creating one occasionally but see you are active over on the Cats for discussion. I posted this to another editor but he seem not to be active right now, so maybe you can comment. I saw that Quadell was involved in the approval of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 9 and came across it tagging an article I watch with this category: Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot). This seems quite odd because the owner is a blocked sock per the user page User:Erik9bot though the edit was made before the bot was blocked. So based on that should this category page even continue to exist? ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) is a know category with the above mentioned bot actively populating it. This is no contradiction to User:Erik9bot being blocked as a sock-puppet. No problem here. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks for the info. ww2censor (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Erik9bot is blocked too. Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

And I am trying to empty the cat. 4000 gone so far. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Favicons

#25 is the Dust Puppy from the webcomic User Friendly. DS (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

#22 is the Neowin logo. --Bsadowski1 22:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

#7 might have been the old radioshack one. — Jake Wartenberg 22:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You must have gone there together, because I hardly ever get any responses about my favicons. Which makes it an all the more pleasant surprise. Is there any way to verify if #7 is indeed the old Radioshack icon? Debresser (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RE

Sorry, I saw that he replaced own with socialist, my imediate guess was that this was vandalism. If you want you can revert it.--Coldplay Expert 23:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Blpwatch

Problem? The template appears to be both unused and related to an inactive proposal. "Oh boy..." is not the most constructive of edit summaries. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have expected an editor who feels he can decide on deprecation of templates to know that he should use {{Tdeprecated}} and to remove the protection template. That is what I meant. I have no problem with the deprecation per se. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no. {{tdeprecated}} is for depreacted templates that have been replaced and are still in use or have historical value; if you look at the documentation you'll see that you're using it incorrectly. Since I believe this template meets neither of these criteria, {{deprecated}} was an appripriate tag to use. If you have no problem with deprecation, I assume it's deletion that you're opposed to, otherwise you really will have me confused. PC78 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chabad's work to help the Cantonist's

Hi Dovid, would you be able to comment here: Talk:Cantonist#Yohanan_Petrovsky-Shtern_on_Rabbi_Schneersohn

Thanks Shlomke (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. A clear case of POV pushing. And a source who engages in "bad science". Debresser (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And an irritatingly immature editor opposing. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Total Drama Action template

I found that template on discussion page about deleting the "future templates". Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates tablo (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hisotrical

I have marked Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories as historical. The 5 reasons for its existence are all moot or better served elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Merger

It would be great if you could help with this. Let me know if you need any help. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It turns out there was only one transclusion of "Infobox NFL coach", so I just converted that one to use "player coach", and redirected "coach" to "player coach". I'm not sure if someone else helped out by reducing the number of transclusions, but in the end it wasn't that big of a task (for me). Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting a sentence with a conjunction

I don't know what favor the debates are tipping in, but I have heard that people are beginning to claim that starting sentences with conjunctions is grammatically correct. I believe that Wikipedia should continue to follow the rule that sentences can not start with conjunctions, and agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.200.190 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celestra (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Broken reference

Fixed; thanks a bunch for bringing it to my attention :). Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you for fixing it. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue you fixed with Fort Lauderdale temple

This edit you made is to fix a problem with the transcluding of the article. Could you help me understand what was happening before you made the change because the same problem should be occuring and need to be fixed on the other temple articles announced on 3 October 2009, except for Brigham City - because they use the named reference like Ft. Lauderdale did before your edit. TIA 68.210.58.148 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The template contains a reference. Which is copied onto all pages using the template. The reference was broken, i.e. had no content. On pages that already have a reference with the same name, that will not be a problem, but on pages that do not, it will leave them with a broken reference and add them to the appropriate error category. The easy way out is to have the full reference in the template. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be appropriate. Hope it helps!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually no need in this specific case, probably because of the <pre> tags. I don't really understand why. I am already happy to know it is working now. :) Debresser (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it isn't needed in this case, I've removed the change so that on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page the 5 temples announced on Oct 3rd all use the same reference, and the same article isn't in multiple footnotes. 68.210.58.148 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - there is no need for the reference to work on {{LDS Temple/Fort Lauderdale Florida Temple}} page because the reference is meant to be used on the pages on which the template is transcluded - <includeonly> tags could be placed around the reference - but there really is no need since the purpose of {{LDS Temple/Fort Lauderdale Florida Temple}} is to gather the data into one location and not to be viewed seperately including the references. 68.210.58.148 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog reference again

The consensus at WP:RS/N was clear, notwithstanding the opinions of movement members on the article Talk: page. Please remove the link, or I'll take it to AN/I. I'll give you a few minutes to think it over. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am non too pleased with an ultimatum, but anyway... you can have another look at that discussion. Even though most of the editors there do not think the blog can be accepted, there are many who say that the copies can be relied on. Add to that all those who have this opinion on the talkpage, and I see no consensus for what you did. Note that I reverted only that half of your edit. If you want to take this to wp:ani, go ahead. I am sure I have not overstepped any bounderies here. Your assertion of consensus is disputable. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Citation#Full_stop_at_the_end_of_the_template_2

Aaand you're on: Template talk:Citation#Full stop at the end of the template 2. Amalthea 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions

Did I do something wrong? • Anakin ^(talk) 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I just restored the capitals at the beginning of the names of templates. Not a big deal at all. I marked the edit as minor, didn't I? Debresser (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It's just that you told me to be careful, and you have a userbox which says "This user thinks that if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But fair enough. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove that box. Thank you. Actually this is part of a purposefull effort of mine to educate people to use capitals in the names of templates (since they are there). So on all Wikipedia pages and in template documentation we should be careful to add them. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Per $wgCapitalLinks, whichever way you link they're treated identically by the software. It's a matter of style / convention / convenience whether people should manually capitalise the first letter or not. Anything else is WP:CREEP. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Which is why I didn't write you about it. Nor did I leave any instructions. I just try to give an example. In this specific case there was also the argument of consistency. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on an open category discussion

I had made a nomination to rename a country-specific ship category to match the country's article, here. After you opposed the nomination, I replied to clarify—I had hoped—the reason for the nomination. On the off chance you might not have seen the comment, could I impose upon you to read it and reconsider your opinion? (If you've already seen the comment and it did not sway your opinion, my apologies for this notice.) Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to your reply. I had not seen it, since I do not regularly follow up on discussions. I have replied there that you have persuaded me in part. If you want to add arguments there, please keep me posted. Debresser (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your question there. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You'll no doubt be pleased to see that I have now agreed with the nomination. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allied Artists International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. I just hopped in on a regular wikignoming round, so I don't think I'll add my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Barret v Obama ref fix

Thanks for fixing that reference - threw it in there kinda quick, wasn't totally sure what to include and then ran out of time to do anything with it. Appreciate you handling it. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoedown Throwdown ref fix

Thank you for bringing the broken reference in Hoedown Throwdown to my attention, as well as the fact it had been fixed! Liquidluck (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for caring. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

fyi

WRT Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_12#Category:Pashtun_Taliban_leaders, I informed the administrator who closed the discussion of half a dozen exceptions.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being so conscientious. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Since you've been working on some of the citation templates lately, might you have a moment or so to have a look over {{cite IETF}} before we begin deploying it? Other than a lack of examples showing more of the template's features, I think it is about ready for real use. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look at Template:Cite IETF/testcases, you'll see something is very much wrong with the archive parameters. Let me try to fix it. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done That one line did it. I'd also advise you to get semi-protection for the template as soon as it is used on 50-100 pages. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to remove my testcases from the testcases page after you had a look. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's odd because it was set up to use OriginalURL. I'll have a look at the meta template and see what the deal is. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the source for {{Citation/core}} I can certainly see how it works. I'm not sure how that parameter got left out but at least it got caught before someone who needed to use it noticed. I'm not too worried about the semi-protection as I've done that with other templates in the past too. I'm expecting no more than 3000-5000 transclusions based just on link searches so semi-protection will certainly be required but I don't think it will need full protection unless it becomes a problem. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on a nice template. Don't forget to add it to the list in Template:Citation/core/doc. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do, I was just waiting until it had been tested more before listing it there. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Help! (again)

Hello,

You were kind enough to have helped me fix an edit error in the past, and I was hoping you could do it again. I messed up on an edit to the Joseph Payne Brennan article. My attempt at fixing some minor flaws in the article resulted in my deleting much of the end of it. And, as you can see from its edits history, I tried to undo it; but for some reason my attempt failed. Now I'm stumped. Would you fix it for me? Thank you for you patience. -- Michael David (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard this message. I appears that someone else was able to undo my edit. Thanks, and be well. -- Michael David (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I would have been happy to help, but I was busy keeping the Shabbath. Glad it's fixed already. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Template loops

Hi Debresser Sorry for removing Category:Wikipedia template cleanup from Category:Template loop warnings. I have a problem in infobox Template. Then I got help Fleetflame (#wikipedia-en-help-free nodeWeb IRC) and solve the problem. Next time i will be careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annilkhan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He, no problem, my friend. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested Template

This user likes to sleep.

(use Edit and copy/paste to your user page)  _{Guy M | Talk}  04:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

T3

Thanks for fixing the template, I had copy pasted the template and didn't think to remove the parameters. I'm not sure why the time wasn't working though, that may be an issue with a change to T3 that hasn't been caught by Twinkle.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Prodego doesn't think these need further discussion, no idea why.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't argue with Prodego over it, it's no big deal. See e-mail.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy CfD question

So here's a hypothetical for you to consider with the "new"/old #4. Take a look at Category:Treaties by country. The subcategories are always "Treaties of FOO". Then look at Category:Peace treaties. Some are "Peace treaties of FOO" but most are "FOOian peace treaties". Can I speedily nominate the "FOOian peace treaties" ones one the basis that the vast majority of treaties categories are "treaties of FOO", or do I have to go through a full CfD since a majority of the peace treaties ones are in the FOOian format? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding each parent category has to be considered separately.

Meaning in this case that changing those two that are in the "Peace treaties of FOO" format should be a speedy, but changing the vast majority from its "FOOian peace treaties" format would definitely be a full Cfd.

But you shouldn't ask me. Ask on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Speedy_rename_-_Criterion_4. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What you've said was my sense too. I just wanted to check that I wasn't being overly restrictive in my interpretation out of habit. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 20#Rulers in Europe by century

This CfD has genarated a lot of talk but only one vote. Nor has anyone proposed an alternative to my proposal. Please read and consider voting. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw it before and didn't make up my mind. Now I have looked again, and more thoroughly, and have left my opinion. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger (redux)

It would be great if you could merge these

{{Wireless systems}}

{{Mobile telecommunications standards}}

Now that the TFD has been closed as merge. You could probably enlist the help of the other editors who voted to merge. Let me know if there is a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yazidi and monotheism

Slight misunderstanding I was simply removing redundant categories. Since Category:Yazidi is already a subcategory of Category:Monotheistic religions, I was streamlining the organization of information rather than making a theological statement. My recollection is that Yazidis have (like e.g. Zoroastrians) a number of divine beings, but with one ontologically separate deity. But what do I know? Your question is a perfectly legitimate one for Talk:Yazidi, though. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate categories Sure. I was simply using the example of Christianity and Bahá'í Faith, which are in minimal categories. Certainly, either of those articles could be in (e.g.) Category:Monotheistic religions or Category:Abrahamic religions, but they aren't. Why, I'm not entirely sure, but it's true. My general rule of thumb is to delete redundant categories, but you correctly point out a (entirely understandable) ambiguity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC? I completely see what you're saying. At the same time, once we start adding these categories to these pages, it is inevitable that there will be back-and-forths and inconsistencies abounding. I simply noticed that there were only three (as I recall) articles in Category:Monotheistic religions as well as a parent category within it as well, so the easiest thing to do was to remove that category from the articles, rather than add it to the dozen or so pages that didn't already have it. If you want others' feedback on this—which, again is entirely reasonable—then RfC might be the best option? I have tried posting to the talk page of various WikiProjects for feedback like this, but I have not had much luck. As should be clear from this post, I simply don't know what to do, but I am a big believer in consistency. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course If you take it there, I'll be happy to chip in (although I have to confess that I might forget...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello! Please, I need your help to deal with an issue that has appeared in the article about Brazil. See it in here. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Debresser! I hope you don´t mind if I make a few comments about what you wrote in the Brazil discussion page:

1. POV language. Comment: Agree.
2. Rephrase to "was killed in the war or feel to famine and illnesses". Comment: Is it really necessary to put casualties from a minor rebellion that did not have any true consequence in the history of the country? For example, the famine that happened in the dry years of 1877-78 in the Brazilian Northeast killed 500,000 people. That´s not mentioned in the article and is rarely mentioned in history books! Do you really believe it should be here? Shouldn´t be in the according article about such rebellion? And one last thing: I checked some of my books and 20% of the province's population died, not between 30-40%. I do not know why user Opinoso insists on putting information that are not entirely correct. Is like he simply selects a few and take it out of the context to please his own will of proving his point.
3. Should not be here. Comment: Agree.
4. This is a factual contradiction. decide based upon external sources. If both parties have a source, include both statements. Comment: User Opinoso has put a book as source, but no page. Strange enough, he uses such book as source for almost anything he writes. The authors that I used are the most renowned Brazilian and British historians. It doesn´t make sense to use as sources books written by an unknown writer instead of a renowned professional in the field. And i took great care to use several different authors and not only one as you can see on the text.
5. Relevant short mention can be kept. Comment: Ok...
6. Seems factual correct, because it means "per period", not in absolute terms. So this is a relevant short mention and can be kept. Comment: Why should exist so much text about slavery when other important facts were kept aside, such as politics, sciences, arts, etc? I think it belongs to the article Slavery in Brazil.
7. Is relevant, but if figures are not mentioned for other periods, then neither should it be done here. Comment: Agree. It belongs to the article slavery in Brazil.
8. Very relevant short mention should be kept. Comment: To much text about slavery in the history section. See no reason for such when so many other info was kept aside.
9. Is this sourced? Even if it is, too detailed.Comment: Agree. Shouldn´t be in here. It is already on the article about Pedro II
10. Incorrect. Comment: Agree. - --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reacting. I'll update my opinions there. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil (how section should be)

Hello, my friend. Sorry to bother you once again. This is how I believe the section should be: simple and straightforward. It is also smaller and easier to read, with no possible controversial passage. I put an "see also: slavery on Brazil" banner so that the more detailed info can be found in the apropriate article. You may erase it after you read it but I would like to known your thoughts on it.

Emperor Pedro II reign

Main article: Pedro II of Brazil

See also: Slavery in Brazil

Emperor Dom Pedro II at age 27, 1853. For "the longevity of his government and the transformations that occurred in its course, no other Head of State has marked more deeply the history of the country."

As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created. Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency. The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem the Sabinada and the Balaiada, all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor). The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival."

Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.” From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War, Uruguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance). The emperor, who never owned slaves, also led the abolitionist campaign that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850 up to the complete abolition in 1888. However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles” and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery. Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887.

Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889. There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects. Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.” After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.” The emperor did not care about its fate and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery. The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.

Sorry, I didn´t mean to be rude back there. - --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I think you should work it out with the help of other editors, including those who disagree with you. That makes an article balancedand interesting. This is too... positive. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I really need your help on this one. I had never had trouble before so I don´t know what to do about this Opinoso guy. I sent him a message trying to make peace and telling him that we should exchange ideas between ourselves and reach a point that could please both. He simply ignored my message. He wrote a large text on the discussion page of article Brazil accusing and attacking for no reason. I made changes to the text once again (as you can see above). I erased many passages that I had wrote and improved some of Opinoso´s own. Read the the second paragraph of the section and you will see. If you want to see the changes, see here. I try to use several different sources so that I can make it clear a point (like the economic growth). All he does is use this "Darcy Ribeiro" as source. He says that my sources cannot be proven, while he doens´t say anything about his own! Take a look in there, please. You can clearly see that he has some problem with the monarchy era in Brazil and his motives are personnal, not motivated by historical reasons. I don´t know what to do. I want to work now on the text about the Republic, but I cant´until I resolve this matter. But how to do that with only one user that doens´t want to dialogue and keeps attacking me and clearly accuses me of bad faith? - --Lecen (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Opinoso's sources

1. Hello, Debresser. I have trouble in accepting a pssage written by Opinoso that you said that was important to stay: "The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa, and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil"

According to Opinoso, he got the information from [here]. The problem is that the only thing that the website gives are statistics about the Brazilian population on the year 1864, 1874, 1884 and 1887. Nowhere it is said that Pedro II reign was the period when most slaves were imported. Just click on the link, even if don´t understand Portuguese you will be able to read it, because it´s only numbers.

Not only Opinoso "made up" an information that the sources does not tell, he also conveniently chose as an example of how many slaves lived in Brazil the year 1864 where it says 1,715,000 slaves. He didn´t pick the other years 1874 (1,540,829 slaves), 1884 (1,240,806 slaves) or 1887 (723,419 slaves). As you can see, he chose only the information that could "prove" his point.

What I wrote (and that he undone) I put: "Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872; and finally to less than 5% in 1887." That is data from the independence of Brazil until the end of Slavery. - --Lecen (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "but against the uneven social structure that it imposed" - According to Opinoso, his source says that the Monarchy was guilty of creating and imposing an uneven social structure. His source is a book written by Darcy Ribeiro, a sociologist (he is not even a historian!) called "O Povo Brasileiro" (The Brazilian People). I have found an [[1]] version of it and searched for his source. If you click on page six you'll see below a chapter called "AS GUERRAS DO BRASIL" where the author briefly discuss three Brazilian rebellions: Palmares (Colony), Cabanagem (Empire) and Canudos (Republic). He says about Cabanagem:

Assim, a luta dos Cabanos, contendo, embora, tensões inter-raciais (brancos versus caboclos), ou classistas (senhores versus serviçais), era, em essência, um conflito interétnico, porque ali uma etnia disputava a hegemonia, querendo dar sua imagem étnica à sociedade.

Translation: "So, the cabano struggle, having, however, inter-racial tensions (white versus caboclos), or classists (masters versus servants(, it was, in essence, an inter-ethnic conflict, because there an ethnicity disputed the hegemony, wanting to give its own ethnicity image to the society."

Nowhere does Darcy Bibeiro mentions issues against monarchy, but conclicts in that particular regional society in Brazil. He tries to make also a paralel between that rebellion and Palmares and Canudos, which is not our focus in here. The book is not even a history one. He barely mention the Empire and some pages are geared toward the colony. Most of it, however, focus in what the author sees as a constant war between afro-brazilians and whites. As you can see, Opinoso is not even faithful to his own source. - --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Confront him with this on the talkpage. Then see what he replies. Perhaps he had something in mind you overlooked. If he didn't, then undoubtebly other editors will agree with you. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I did that. He simply mocked me saying that he had a real life or something like that. Take a look on what I also wrote in here. I am putting some of my sources so that everyone can see by themselves. - --Lecen (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now. Ok, now wait for the guy to come back from his date. Another day is not much. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He already did, as he created another section with a request to other editor to comment. Now he is trying to evade my claims and is accusing me of blanking the older text. I was looking on his discussion page and I saw that this is not the first time he participate on edit wars and serious discussions. I will wait but I am expecting something ugly out of him. - --Lecen (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Keep the discussion open. If his - or your - claims are unsubstantial, that will show. Nobody will do anything "ugly", because that would lead to sanctions. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He keeps insinuating that I have bad faith. I am tired of that. Did you see that he is ignoring the fact that he faked infromation to prove his point and now he is trying to simply revert to the older text so that everyone can forget about it? Read my reply to him, please. - --Lecen (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

About the issue in the article about Brazil

Hello, Debresser. I would like to thank you for your patience on that matter. I know it gets tired after a while. I am going to travel and I'll be back on tuesday. So, please, until then, hold that guy and prevent him from doing further damage.

About the matter, I would like to make a few comments. Opinoso is not there because he is defending the inclusion of historical information into the article. he is there simply to cause trouble and because he will not accept to "lose" (which is childsh, in my opinion, as we are not in here to win, just to contribute). I read almost all the book written by Darcy Ribeiro and none of his claims are in there. About poverty and stagnation in other Brazilian provinces, all I saw was that Ribeiro said that after the U.S. Civil War the province of Pernambuco grew economicaly. Pernambuco is one of the areas that according to Opinoso was stagnated. Or Darcy Ribeiro contradicted himself or once again Opinoso is faking information. Anyway, the information that he faked must be removed, that's a fact. I don´t believe he will back down, unless other editors tell him to stop the disruption that he is causing. I don´t think that will happen and meanwhile, as you must have noticed, Opinoso keeps attacking my integrity trying to evade from the misdeed he commited. So, wait for my until tuesday. Best regards, - --Lecen (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving categories

Hi, I'm rather new to editing categories, so I am very sorry if I did something against protocol. I assumed that moving a category was similar to moving an article, which is being done without going to AfD. Is there a page somewhere where these things are explained? As you may have seen from the (long) discussion on my talk page, the journals categories are somewhat of a mess and need cleaning and I would like to do things correctly. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Started and continued on user talkpage. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference

Fixed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Steve Smith (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Account creation system

Debresser, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.

At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.

Again, thanks for your interest in the account creation system. Join us on IRC at wikipedia-en-accounts and subscribe to the mailing list by going here. Willking1979 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod2

My bad. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Geobox

Where are they used? Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

Japan parental abduction

I'm not that technically literate. Until very recently, I simply used []. I have made an effort to learn how to use {{citation}}: Empty citation (help). However, for some reason, it didn't work right so I'm sticking to what work. Vapour (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So do you mean as long as I have "|url=" and "|title", it will work. Thanks. Vapour (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

X-ray transient

You recent edit to the article, here removed a large chunk of text. Did you mean to do that? 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)