Talk:Brazil/Archive 4

message: João Felipe C.S is doing vandalism in Wikipedia. 
Wikipedia says that no users can manipulate an article. He cannot stop us from editing in this article.
It is written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN
João Felipe C.S  should be adiviced that he cannot reverte everyone's editis here. Opinoso 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinoso, the same argument is valid against you. You have repeatedly stated things such as "Who gave you permission to change my edits?". If that's not a violation of WP:OWN, I don't know what is. João Felipe is free to edit as he sees fit, as long as it is within policy. As we discussed above, no one has presented any compelling arguments that his edits have been malicious in nature. I will say what I've told you three separate times now: Feel free to change what you see fit, but be prepared to defend your edits in the talk page. João Felipe, if questioned, has to do the same. Saying "Wikipedia says that no users can manipulate an article." is not only wrong, but counter to the founding principle of the encyclopedia--see. And you're right, he cannot stop you from editing, but he can revert you (as he has), and as long as he doesn't revert you 3 times in a 24 hour period (the three-revert rule), he's allowed to do so. If you have an issue with his edits, address his particular edits (as you did yesterday), NOT the editor.--Dali-Llama 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulate an article in against Wikipedia 

message: All right, I'm declaring thread bankruptcy. I can't follow comments on a time-tag basis and I think we all agree that the article size needs to be reduced, and we have to roll up our sleeves and do it. Let's do this: Section by section, let's discuss what can be/has been cut, and its relocation to its own article. Let's adopt the following procedure (Feel free to ammend it):
"When removing content, a)summarize the change, b)explain the (ir)relevancy of the content removed c)indicate whether or not content was relocated to a sub-article. Sign individual changes (as we did in Opinoso's issues thread). If replying to a specific change (as opposed to adding your own), indent your comment under the specific change."--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems at the appropriate size when compared to Canada and France.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed, although I think we can merge this section as a subsection of “History”. I think it’s too small to be on its own. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This can be significantly shortened (see the Canada section), but in the best tradition of the Internet: IANAL--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed: "In 1994, With the increased economic stability provided by the Plano Real economic package, both Brazilian and multinational corporations have invested heavily in new equipment and technology, a large proportion of which has been purchased from American enterprises." Seems too specific. Plano real was already covered in the history section. This section should be more for structural features of the economy, and temporal features left for the Economic history of Brazil article.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This section and next 3 sub-sections need to cut to approximately 1/3 of its present size. Can anyone volunteer?--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed: "São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are far larger than any other Brazilian city. São Paulo's influence in most economic aspects can be noted in a national (and even international) scale; other Brazilian metropolises are second tier, even though Rio de Janeiro (partially due to its former status as the national capital) still host various large corporations' headquarters, besides being Brazil's cultural center with respect to soap operas and film production." This entire paragraph is implicit with the table.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *None of articles cited by Victor have "Social issues" section. I suggest revert again Sparks and leave old section; remove the whole section; or make a new prose text with only 3 paragraphs. Carlosguitar 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see no problem in making the section smaller - poverty takes up 3 paragraphs - we can turn that into one. If you don't like the section due to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries we can turn it into a sub section of "demographics". Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'm gonna anger a lot of people here, but here we go. This section is way too large. I understand the concern to demonstrate that Brazil is not "just about football", but other FA country articles, such as Canada and Germany, either don't have that section or have a tiny faction of what we have. I've removed A LOT of stuff, tried to get concise. It's unimaginable to list as many championships as we do. I mentioned the Pan and the Olympic bid, and that should suffice.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wrote the section but I'm fine with your suggestion. Sparks1979 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed: Olympic candidacy info. Too detailed.--Dali-Llama 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Felipe, why do you feel that failed past olympic bids should be in the article?--Dali-Llama 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed: "Brazilian football clubs have also experienced significant international success, winning the most prestigious South American competition (Copa Libertadores) on thirteen occasions." Kinda follows when you win 5 world cups. this section is long compared to other country articles already.--Dali-Llama 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed: "...and partly in private institutions, especially in non-profit non-governmental organizations" Redundant. If it's "mostly in public institution" wouldn't it follow that the other part is in private institutions?--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Replaced: picture of Marcos Pontes with Embraer picture, per the previous discussion. There might be a better picture, but I thought house colors would be better than some Air France livery picture.--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Removed templates... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length Edits

message: Minor changes include aligning pictures to the right per WP:MOS. I'm sorry if I've removed someone's edits (I'm sure I have), but this is one of those bold moments. Resist the temptation to press the revert button: make edits as you see fit, but try to address the changes individually. Let's roll-up those sleeves!--Dali-Llama 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all. I had written about 30-40% of the contents the article had as of 06.08.2007 and I see no problem in the changes you are undertaking. Just make sure you relocate data to other pages so all the hard work is not lost! Relevant information should be preserved, although there’s no doubt things need to be in the right places and much of it needs to go to sub pages. Keep up the good work! Sparks1979 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs a picture of Rio de Janeiro. It is impossible to talk about Brazil and not talk about Rio. By the way, there are no picture of a Brazilian beach there. Opinoso 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, no problem. I agree we have to mention Rio de Janeiro, but it's possible to talk about Brazil without necessarily having a picture of Rio de Janeiro. Also, I think most users agreed there's no need to have pictures of beaches for encyclopedic purposes when you mentioned this above. Sparks1979 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains 3 images about Rio de Janeiro... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I find that he has an overload of images in the right of the article, and I think better to spread the photos, balancing the two sides. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Discussion

message: Finally the users if had joined to improve the Brazil article. This is fantastic. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: In my opinion, the layout of the article still can be improved. I am working in a model here. When to finish, I will present here in talk page and we could make a voting. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. This is why I always told you it's good to consult other editors before making nominations - new ideas may arise regarding possible improvements. Sparks1979 03:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One more thing - I think people should take a look at the model Filipe has designed. I think it's looking pretty good. Perhaps people should voice their opinions regarding this as well. Among other minor adjustments, he suggests we eliminate the tables in "demographics" and turn the information into prose. Sparks1979 03:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: * The lead section seems mostly good. However, it should be a summary of the article, and as such, should not contain reference citations (the citations should be in the article text itself). Editors might also want to check out the last paragraph of the lead. Why does "throughout the 90s" have a citation on it? the reference should be at the end of the sentence. This last paragraph could probably be rewritten to provide just a mere summary of the economy as a whole, don't start out by mentioning its recent economic revolution.
: Fixed and reviewed. Per WP:LEAD, potentially questionable facts still need a source. Considering the facts in the lead are not replicated anywhere else (such as the coastline length), I think citations are appropriate. If you feel there are any unnecessary citations, I'd be glad to remove them as well.--Dali-Llama 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carlosguitar 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has not been done, yet. I still think that it doesn't really go with history, and the article could benefit by having pronunciation and etymology information in its own main section. Dr. Cash 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's done--Dali-Llama 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: --Dali-Llama 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: --Dali-Llama 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Rainfall is usually measured in millimeters, even when higher than 1,000 (see rain article). Similarly, altitude is most commonly stated in thousands of meters (or feet), unless used in comparison with large distances or measured in outer space (see altitude). Is this okay?--Dali-Llama 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carlosguitar 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Reworded, what do you think now? Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Carlosguitar 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Carlosguitar 06:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Carlosguitar 06:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Reworded with source. I am reluctant to add more statement, we are nearly to fail WP:SIZE. I think we need to develop subpages not add more content here. Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Carlosguitar 06:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I regret to say they haven't had many accomplishments. Their only launch vehicle exploded in an accident a few years ago, and they have yet to master critical liquid-fuel rocket technology which would enable them to launch heavier payloads in complex vehicles. They have yet to send a payload into orbit. I've revised that, and replaced "burgeoning" with "nascent", as well as adding a note about solid-fuel rockets.--Dali-Llama 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Threw in some reviewing per WP:RS as well. --Dali-Llama 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed references. Carlosguitar 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I did a minor clean up. Should we remove more? Carlosguitar 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: --Dali-Llama 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since when does the lead not contain citations? WP:LEAD specifically says it should if needed. T Rex | talk 09:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Article looks great now! I like the addition of the etymology section -- could probably be expanded to include some more information on the pronunciation (e.g. 'brazil' vs. 'brasil' pronunciations). The article looks reasonably stable with the exception of primarily anon IP reverts, and a few minor things, but I don't see any major edit wars in the past week, so that's good. It could probably use a few more details on health care, too, but I won't let that hold up GA status any longer at this point. Great work! Dr. Cash 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: The latest vandalism of João Felipe C.s was against humanity. His picture about Brazilian people separated people considering their skin colour. Blacks are located at the bottom, blondes at the top.
Everyone should know that Brazilians are all the same, there is no such thing as a 100% white or black Brazilian. That is the latest work of our dear João Felipe C.s., the man who knows this country better than anyone else.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KREATOR OF BO (talk • contribs).
:Wow, this is fairly close to being a personal attack please read WP:CIVIL before posting another thread like this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinoso, I said I hoped that it wasn't you, as that was a single-purpose account created only a few days ago and he made the same points you did. Typically that means the person's comments (Kreator) are not really taken into consideration because of how new that account is (that's why I'm really responding to you, who has contributed a lot and helped us a lot and talked when asked to do so, and not him). As I've mentioned before, I don't have a problem with your arguments, I just don't like when they get personal. But I think we're already past that. We're in the middle of a GA review, so I don't want to open up an old discussion. We're already thinking of replacing the demographics picture anyways, so hopefully that will solve things (but let that move come from us, not from you and Felipe so we don't have more conflict).--Dali-Llama 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  João Felipe C.s. the racist 

message: Okay, I guess we're back to deciding which pictures to post. --Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the mission of Brazil in Haiti is not accurately one success. Second, the image of the carrier combines with the article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 1 looks better, as Dalillama said it represents "Foreign Policy" and "Military" in a single pic. --Victor12 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *First, almost no article presents a section " Social issues". Second, the image of the favela at night is better in the article. Any another image that expresses the favelas better can be placed in the main article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Option 2 has better quality and is prettier. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *There's a mistake in the caption of the second one, it is not an ERJ-175 (there's no such thing) but a ERJ-145. Either pic would be fine in the article. IMHO the first one looks somewhat better because its in Embraer livery and depicts a more modern and capable airplane thus it seems like a better showcase for Brazilian technology. --Victor12 01:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Option 1	Option 2
        	
Note: The previous picture, the Mirage 2000 one, is not properly tagged, so it needed to be replaced (it was supposedly a Creative Commons picture from the FAB, when the FAB clearly states "all rights reserved" on their website.
I prefer the Haiti picture: it kills two birds with one stone, showing Brazilian foreign policy in action through a military peackeeping mission.--Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the mission of Brazil in Haiti is not accurately one success. Second, the image of the carrier combines with the article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 1 looks better, as Dalillama said it represents "Foreign Policy" and "Military" in a single pic. --Victor12 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Foreign relations and the military'''

message: Option 1	Option 2
        	
*I thought we had already agreed on this. The consensus was the lighted picture would be used. Despite the nighttime picture being prettier, it does not illustrate what a favela actually is.--Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *First, almost no article presents a section " Social issues". Second, the image of the favela at night is better in the article. Any another image that expresses the favelas better can be placed in the main article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Social issues'''

message: Option 1	Option 2
        	
Note: The previous picture also needed to be replaced due to fair use status.
*I posted the 175 picture to the left. My reasons are: 1)It illustrates the most advanced and recent Embraer aircraft, and 2)does so using the so-called "House colors" and not in the livery of a foreign airline.--Dali-Llama 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Option 2 has better quality and is prettier. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *There's a mistake in the caption of the second one, it is not an ERJ-175 (there's no such thing) but a ERJ-145. Either pic would be fine in the article. IMHO the first one looks somewhat better because its in Embraer livery and depicts a more modern and capable airplane thus it seems like a better showcase for Brazilian technology. --Victor12 01:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Science and Technology'''