User talk:JorgePeixoto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pirate Party USA

Before you re-create that article, please note this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party of the United States. Note the consensus. --Calton | Talk 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Oi Jorge. Vejo que você é brasileiro também. Por acaso você não teria vontade de contribuir também no Simple English Wikipedia em artigos relacionados ao Brazil? Obrigado. --Paulistanum 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Con Kolivas

A tag has been placed on Con Kolivas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Streetfighter dhalsim illust.png

Hello JorgePeixoto, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Streetfighter dhalsim illust.png) was found at the following location: User:JorgePeixoto. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

Olá Jorge! Gostaria de saber se você não se enteressaria em contribuir para Potential superpowers#Brazil. A seção precisa de uma revisão no texto, e seria bom mais referências. Desde já agradeço; Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 03:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:98.207.48.163

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:98.207.48.163, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was an accident. Maybe a software bug, as I don't remember seeing the other comments when I added mine. I have undone my edit. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Transmission_on_GNOME.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Transmission_on_GNOME.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion on "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface" contested

I believe your revision of Advanced Configuration and Power Interface is unnecessary. It should be used only to fix vandalism or for unusual circumstances, and I do not believe it meets either criterion.Bettering the Wiki 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that reverting is restricted to fixing vandalism or unusual circumstances. Also, note that I explained my edit with an edit summary. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Java (programming language)

Please don't constantly revert each other's actions. Try to talk it out. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edits of an anonymous user whose edits were very sloppy and unexplained (no edit summary). Being a C guy, I don't know if his edit is worthy in the technical sense. But given all the hints that it isn't, I prefer to stick with the status quo. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying any particular user is right or wrong, and you're probably both trying to help out, but constant reversion is counterproductive. Discussion is much more productive. Also, we do have rules against this, like WP:3RR and WP:EW. So, yeah, just discuss first. It'll work out much better. :) Green caterpillar (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I assumed bad faith because the user was anonymous, edited sloppily, and provided no edit summary. I should have kept in mind that users unfamiliar with Wikipedia sometimes perform confusing edits. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

Someone else explained the issue, you ignored him. Please concentrate on improving the topics (and take my advice to do some reading rather than the 15-second google you used for supplying cut/paste instead). Tedickey (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard his arguments and said that tmpfile's interface is reasonable; any possible security flaw resides in a particular implementation. I asked

1. which OS had the flawed implementation?
2. Most importantly: is the implementation still flawed?

You ignored all the discussion and descended into fighting. Me and Michael (who disagreed with me, but appears to understand the subject and behaves with civility) presented valid technical arguments. You were more interested in fighting and making false assumptions about my research. Read that whole talk page and see the attitudes of me, Michael and you.

And specifically

"Do a little reading (you'd be surprised who you're making disparaging comments about ;-) Tedickey (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"

"Tell me."

"Do your own reading"

Honestly. Do you think your attitude above was civil or constructive? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

what's with the ubuntu fanboyism

Why do you keep readding the 7-zip Wine screenshot? It has no place in the article, a lot of software runs on Wine, but there's not any point of putting it there other than to show that Wikipedia is a place where there's an insane bias towards free software.

--85.228.194.165 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fanboyism"? You have been deleting Ubuntu content in industrial scale, and often replacing them with Fedora content without prior discussion. You have been warned multiple times to stop this. It is ironic - to say the least - that you call someone "fanboy".

Fedora content? I have nothing to do with that. Honestly. --85.228.194.165 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The tone of your message in my talk page and your edit summary in 7zip looks suspiciously like those of Contributions/69.245.242.199, who is in the middle of a Jihad. Given you appeared shortly after with an anonymous IP, uses similar language, and compatible actions, I have grounds to suspect you are the same person. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree that the wine screenshot has no place in the article. It is useful to show screenshots of the software running on the major platforms it can successfully run on-- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking. Do we need to add a screenshot of every Windows program running in Linux now?

I did not say that. Do not reply to what I did not say. What I did say is "It is useful to show screenshots of the software running on the major platforms it can successfully run on", and I forgot to say the obvious "when the number of screenshots is not excessive". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading your user contribution list, and it seems like most of it is just edit wars. You're incredibly biased (looking at your user page I see the GNU logo), and you're actually poisoning Wikipedia. Please stop. --85.228.194.165 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion in the talk page before changing the article. I explained my view there.

And can you provide substance to your accusation that a significant portion of (let alone "most") of my contributions are edit wars? You have ignored the relevant discussion in the article's talk page and came to personally attack me. And regarding the edit war in 7zip, you and Contributions/69.245.242.199 are the cause. You delete content with no prior discussion and inappropriate or no edit summary. When a discussion is started in the talk page, you ignore it and keep repeating your edits. When users like me undo your edits, begging that you participate in the discussion before forcing your changes in the article, an edit war emerges. The guilt is certainly not on me.-- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What is reason you keep posting the Ubuntu screenshot what represents the Gnome desktop environment to Operating system article "Unix and Unix-like Operating systems" part? The screenshot is not valid on that part, actually any of the market share information on that part is needed because the Dell+Ubuntu part can be keeped on Ubuntu article, Mandriva Linux + HP on Mandriva article etc. Screenshots are not informative on that article because it only is showing Ubuntu's designed theme and wallpaper for Gnome desktope environment and it has nothing to do with operating system, what the article is about to speak. Unless you can have screenshot of Linux working, what is actually impossible because Linux does not have UI itself, then you could post that screenshot there. As long that Ubuntu screenshots stays there, it is just promoting Ubuntu and article on that part is so on a very biased for Ubuntu. So why you add the screenshot of Gnome desktop as it would be about operating system, because it is not presenting operating system? Golftheman (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First, is English your native language? If you know Portuguese or Spanish, we would communicate more easily.

Second, I have been adding the screenshot!? Now that's backwards. We have a linux screenshot in that article since at least 2006-07-24. I do believe the screenshot is appropriate, and so do many other editors. I saw no discussion to justify the screenshot removal. I did see some inappropriate edit summaries such as "removing Ubuntu screenshot to prevent Ubuntu marketing". That's irrelevant. We should discuss if the screenshot is appropriate or not, istead of discussing whether it is marketing. If an article on microprocessors shows a picture of an Intel 386, should we remove that to "prevent Intel marketing" ? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I know (since a long time ago), you foolish bot. The last time I accidentally typed three tildes instead of four. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tmpfile

Hi, Jorge Peixoto. I just wanted to let you know that I have requested a third party opinion. The request can be seen with this diff. Also, please don't be so quick to disregard SineBot; I have already had to use {{unsigned}} with you, twice. Anyway, I hope you don't take this disagreement of ours personally. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully on more agreeable matter. Have a good day. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes SineBot yields false positives, like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A7-Zip&diff=228777294&oldid=228777165 (notice I signed at the bottom). I worry about signing my comments. If I forgot to do it with you, I'm sorry. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Common misconceptions

"Pong was not the first video game. In fact, Tennis for Two, created in 1958, was one of the first electronic games to use a graphical display. The first coin-operated video game, Computer Space, was created in 1971 by the future founders of Atari. Fearing that Computer Space had not been popular because of its complexity, Nolan Bushnell and Allan Alcorn created Pong in 1972 after Bushnell had seen a similar game at a trade show."

Considering I took all the information directly from the Pong, Computer Space, and Tennis for Two articles, along with their sources, I would like to know what you think the contradiction is? Asher196 (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

your revert comment on Blackbox and other window manager articles

If you're pondering Petchboo's edits, see the revision history of the template in question. He doesn't like the position I've taken regarding this template, and rather than discussing on the talk page as requested, resorted to simply removing the template from transcluding articles. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that it is useful to organize the desktop environments and window managers based on "weight". I also think it is objective. It can be measured by installed size and memory use. But even if we don't measure it, I think it is OK to use conventional wisdom. And the behavior of Petchboo is absurd. He should get (at least) a warning. That said, I hope you can keep your head cool and keep doing good work. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to comment at Template talk:X desktop environments and window managers, your input would be welcome. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu screenshot on "Unix and Unix-like Operating Systems"

Please, take part to discussion what is started on the "Operating System" article talk page, no: 46 Golftheman (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: X desktop environments and window managers

Your input would be welcome. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sgi cube logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sgi cube logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ita.png

A tag has been placed on File:Ita.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pave the Way Foundation

I have reverted your deletion, once again, of text in the lede in part because it contains a reference to how they deconstruct myths relating to Pius XII. The methods they use have been criticised by notable scholars in the field and it would be misleading not to mention this, even if there were no other mention of Pius in the lede. The article was essentially a piece of apologetics self promotion before I responded to a request on the article talk page for more balanced material. I understand that in the apologetics world anything which doesn't praise the subject of interest is generally regarded as an attack but that isn't how Wikipedia works so please stop deleting important material. Please also cut out your own "anti-catholic" comments within the wikipedia text. Yt95 (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the guy's talk page Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ordination of women

(moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ordination_of_women#Language_choice_in_the_Introduction)

1RR

In case you're not aware (though I believe you should be, since if I recall correctly there's an editnotice on the page in question), there's a sanction on abortion-related articles, including Catholics for Choice, that limits users to one revert per 24 hours. Information about these sanctions can be found here. This means that your recent edits are a violation of this rule, given that you have reverted more than once in the past 24 hours. Please restore the article to the state it was in before your second revert. You are welcome to open a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss the changes you believe should be made.

I'll also note in passing that several of your edits have been violations of WP:BLP, which requires that contentious material about living persons be cited only to the best possible sources. This means that you cannot make up reasons why O'Rourke was defrocked when the source states several times that it was because of a baptism; if you wish to state that it was for another reason, you must find a source of equal or better quality that says so. Similarly, if you wish to state that Frances Kissling made a certain statement, you must find a reliable source that quotes her saying it, not a political organization trying to discredit her. BLP issues must be corrected immediately, per Wikipedia policy, so when you revert yourself to comply with 1RR, please take extra care to revert your additions of unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons.Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you didn't read the source you are referring to. Please read it. Not just the title! The text I wrote comes directly from the source.

Regarding the Kissling statement, I said already that Thomas Woods is an established scholar - a historian with a harvard PHD. By the way, your words make me suspect your objectivity. You say that Thomas Woods work is a "screed" and earlier you said that the USCCB is a "pressure group" with no authority to say what organization is Catholic. This is simply scary. This is like saying that the US government is a pressure group with no authority to say who is American. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And regarding 1RR, is that OK now? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith in reverting yourself to comply with the 1RR sanction on the article, but your reverts - the false information about O'Rourke, and the removal of the source on World Youth Day For All - are still standing. Please restore the article to the state it was in before your second revert.

Those weren't reverts; when I added information about O'Rourke, I didn't revert the article to a past state.

And when I removed that source, I also didn't revert the article to a recent past state. And I remove that source for lack of relevance. What article text does that source confirm? I think that source was probably added to confirm a text that was later removed. If you want to add that link back, add it as a "further reading", not as a source. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A revert is any action that undoes another user's edits. You have tried several times within the past 24 hours to insert this false claim about O'Rourke, among other things. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of 1RR isn't really so you (or anyone) can just wait "until tomorrow" to try again. It's partly so that the editors who are disputing can have a little bit of a head start to discuss the disputed content. Is it all right if I copy these comments to the article talk page so we can discuss the issues there and get the input of other editors, or would you prefer to begin a section yourself?

Please copy Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll also respond here, in case you'd prefer to discuss here; if you're planning to copy and paste the discussion to the article page, please copy these as well.

1. Wrong. The article says that the "long trail of discontent" led up to the baptism, not that it was the cause of the excommunication defrocking (which, yes, it was "after" chronologically, but I don't think we would say "he was excommunicated defrocked after he became a Jesuit" or "excommunicated defrocked after he ate a sandwich" - the phrasing implies causality). Indeed, it explicitly says in several places that the excommunication defrocking was because of the baptism - see paragraph 2, for example. We could also solve this problem by removing the clause entirely, since there does exist an article on O'Rourke in which the issue can be discussed in more depth. What do you think?

It is disingenuous to say he was expelled "because of the baptism". This would be like saying that World War I happened "because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand". It is so simplistic that it is wrong. Now, what exactly do you propose we remove? Maybe we should say simply "ex-priest". Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If the best source we had said that that was what caused the war, that's what we would have to say. In that case, we have scholarly sources that give us more background. Here, however, our best source says that he was defrocked because of the baptism. We can't decide that we just know better because we're fantastically intelligent people. Do you have a source of equal or better quality that provides another reason for which he was defrocked, since our source explicitly states in several places that it was because of the baptism? As I said, I'd be cool with leaving the background to the O'Rourke article and just leaving it at "ex-priest" (for the sake of BLP I will make that edit now). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1. If Woods is so reliable, why wasn't he able to publish this claim with a trade or scholarly publisher that has an editorial fact-checking process?

Because few people care about it. I don't think "Catholics for Choice" is important enough to be studied by many historians. It is a tiny group created to "change the Church from the inside" (this was said by one of them). Many of their members have stated that they don't even believe in the Church; and all their funding comes from secular and often anti-religious organizations; they even attempt to remove the Holy See from the UN! This is not a religious phenomenon worthy of study, but political intrigue. Few scholars would want to spend their time with this. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh sponsored a group called "Democrats against Barack Obama". Few historians would waste their time with such a shallow political ploy. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable sources don't say anything about this, so we should use a flagrantly unreliable source" is not an argument that will win you any support. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that; I said that Thomas Woods is reliable. I was explaining why other historians don't care about it (which was your question). Jorge Peixoto (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Catholic right" : it is inappropriate to try applying simplistic political categories to the Church? John Paul II, who was pro-life, supported a distributist economic model and opposed the Iraq war, would be "left" or "right"? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevance? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally: I apologize for English mistakes - I'm Brazilian. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem (I haven't noticed any mistakes). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Most of this seems to have made it on to the talk page without copying and pasting - is there anything for an ongoing discussion there that I still should copy and paste? (Sorry I wasn't able to get around to it.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please see [1] – Lionel ^(talk) 11:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR...again

There's no way for you to deny that you're unaware of the 1RR sanction on abortion-related articles. Please revert your edit at Catholicism and abortion before it becomes necessary to report you for edit-warring. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, let's have a calm discussion about the material at the article's talk page. If you like, you can also post about the sources at WP:RSN. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remember the previous revert. And you will agree that the deletion was absurd. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

about CFC and Kissling

Hello, Jorge. Here's a pamphlet from the Catholic point of view that might yield some sources. The War on Faith. The "Doyle" reference in the pamphlet is C. Joseph Doyle writing in the January 1994 issue of Catholic World Report; article titled "Agent of Influence". Unfortunately, that issue isn't archived on the CWR webpage. I haven't read the article, but it seems to have direct quotes from F. Kissling. Keep up the good work! Viva Cristo Rey! (Sorry, I don't know how to say that in Portuguese). --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(heck, I couldn't even spell it right in Spanish, lol!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jorge, I just read the sections above this and it turns out you already know all about Woods. Sorry about that! --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JorgePeixoto. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

20:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR, third time

This is the last time I will warn you for violating 1RR. The next time, you will be reported without another warning. Please revert yourself before you are reported this time. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello JorgePeixoto,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

July 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Catholics for Choice. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JorgePeixoto (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The blocking user justified like this:

"Concerning the paragraph starting Critics of Catholics for Choice argue that, revert was to the text originally removed here [4], and reinstated in revert 1 and revert 2."

I wasn't aware that two partial reverts, trying to reach a compromise, being well explained with edit summaries and comments, would violate 1RR. Namely, if a page has text "A1 A2" and then:

   Someone deletes it all and replaces with B
   I partially revert it, keeping B and adding A1, A2 back (with explanation)
   The other user deletes A1, A2 again
   I try to compromise by keeping B and reinstating "A1" (leaving out A2 which is what is most likely to be challenged by the other user), again with edit summary and comments

I honestly didn't think it would be considered edit warring. This was actually an attempt to reach a compromise. This block is uncalled for, unproductive and harmful. In fact, I was about to add sources to the article, and also start a new thread in the talk page, but now I can't edit even the talk page. If you judge that I was indeed wrong to partial-revert twice, then I agree not to do it again Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You clearly have not read the warnings surrounding your actions. Start with WP:REVERT, specifically the line "reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors". We use article talkpages to obtain compromise, not pound away at the article partially reverting each other until something sticks. Start with WP:EW, go over WP:DR, take a good look at WP:BRD - by the end of this brief 24hr period you should be an expert (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've gotten your email. I'm very sorry but I'm just too tired to respond, other than to say that it is indeed a violation. I would personally also like to see a better acknowledgement that it's neither ok to edit war, nor try to game the system to make exactly the maximum number of reverts. Sorry I can't type further but my real life calls me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Missed my chance!

Hi, Jorge. Sorry to see your block. Just a few hours to go; be strong. I saw Roscelese's wholesale reverts and section blankings the other night and I should have reverted them all, but I was too passive. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC on Roscelese‎

Would you be interested in certifying an RFC on Roscelese‎? ZHurlihee (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert about User:Roscelese

Hello, JorgePeixoto. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JorgePeixoto. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NYyankees51 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Archive 1

Archive 2