User:Hoary/Archive22

John Asfukzenski

John Asfukzenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — he's gotta be kidding, right? I mean "Ass-fucks-inski"? Surely he could be permablocked on the username alone? ► RATEL ◄ 07:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The resemblance hadn't occurred to me, and now that you bring it to my attention I find it unremarkable. Still, you're welcome to bring it up here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also use the template {{uw-username}} to express your concern about the username. WP:UAA is not the place to go as the username has been around for a little bit (just about four months, in fact). WP:UAA is only for recently-created usernames. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Anyway, I'm much more concerned about Asfukzenski's bizarre editing pattern, delayed but not altered by a block, than I am about his name. -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how much longer User:John Asfukzenski's unexplained content removal will be tolerated? Despite two blocks and multiple warnings, his editing pattern has not improved. APK because, he says, it's true 09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Basket.

Well well, what a to-do. If posterity is interested, the Great Debate may be found here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Hi

Thanks for your contributions. It was an outburst after I realized that Opinoso (a foreigner) has been controlling Brazilian related themes at wikipedia, and he has bullied Brazilians (check the history of his posts, some are contributive, but in most cases he bullies Brazilian posters). Opinoso claims to be Brazilian, but he is not, he is definitely a liar. As for the "lier" instead of "liar" I apologize.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by WielandDerSchmitzFreiheit (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Holtby

Hey, I'm only messaging you because you currently seem to be active :) Could you please take care of the speedy on Holtby‎ please so I can move the page back? Thank you :) Jeni ^(talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a pleasure (a pleasant change from unrelated silliness). -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! While a small act alone doesn't deserve a barnstar, you can have a picture of one instead! Jeni ^(talk) 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Hi! Are you doing OK? Please block this user. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? I took a quick look at his talk page and saw lots of stern messages about his edits, but when I looked through his recent edits I didn't see anything that merited a block. (Irritation, maybe; block, no.) In one article I saw what seemed like a low intensity edit war between both of you, but I didn't see any sources adduced by either side, or any attempt to discuss matters on the talk page. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're right; it's past my bedtime. -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he seems to be a reincarnation of this banned user who never used talk page when other users suggested and drove us nuts. Both users' edits are basically the same. Irritation, yes, yes, yes. But it's OK. I trust your judgment. Sleep tight and have a good and dirty pinku dream, Sir! Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Welsh placenames

Leave the Welsh placenames until you get agreement to add them. Any other addition will be regarded as vandalism. Skinmeister (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[Non] conversation closed. (Anyone wanting earlier and later messages should see here.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Henri Cartier-Bresson

If his work generally can't be described as photojournalism, then he shouldn't have been in "photojournalists" in the first place. If "photographers" is more appropriate and accurate, then he can certainly be in that one instead — but it's not necessary or desirable for a person to be in both categories at the same time. I'd note, however, that the article's lead paragraph describes him as essentially the father of photojournalism. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree on all counts. If a substantial amount of his work is photojournalism, then he's a photojournalist; and even if this is true, if a substantial amount of his photographic work is not photojournalism, then he's also a photographer aside from being a photojournalist. His fatherhood of anything is irrelevant here. (The last time I looked at it, the [poor] article said that he was the father of modern journalism, or similar [a statement that might actually mean something if elaborated; until then, one might as well say that Salomon or Peress or somebody else was the father]; but it didn't say he was the father of photojournalism, which would be plain wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hedvig Malina

Hi, I'm a bit confused by your actions at this article. It would seem that you are engaging in the edit war,[1] but also using your admin tools to then protect the article on your version.[2] Your comments on the talkpage also seem uncivil, as you are repeatedly referring to "boneheadedness".[3][4] Is it possible that you are too close to the situation to be using admin tools? Or am I missing something? --Elonka 15:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made by a freshly created puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. As far as I remember, that's been my sole change to that article. Further, I haven't edited any related article in months. (I'm thinking of Bratislava, which I observed descending from FA status to a battlefield thanks to boneheadedness on both sides of a dreary ethnic feud.) In the recent history of article (about somebody of whom I'd never heard until this evening), I saw evidence of what I could most easily call boneheadedness. (I've no reason to think that either side has a monopoly or even majority of this boneheadedness, and don't think I suggested otherwise.) As the article was being edited by a puppet of a bad-tempered and freshly blocked person, sprotecting seemed an excellent idea. The version is not "my" version, it's the version preceding the edit by the puppet. I have no opinion on which version is better, just as I have no opinion or knowledge of the facts of the sordid little story described in the article. I hope this answers your questions. -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a bit. I've done quite a bit of admin work in the Hungary/Slovakia area, so I know how complex some of these situations can be! I agree with the semi-protection, though it probably wasn't a good idea for an admin to do any reverting directly since I'm sure the normal editors on that page would have jumped on it. If an admin does do such a revert, it probably would have been better to include a more detailed edit summary, such as "reverting BLP violation" or "reverting edit by banned user (name)".

I also still have strong concerns that language such as "boneheadedness" was used at the talkpage, and I'd appreciate if you'd refactor your posts to something more neutral. Especially in this topic area, it's very important that administrators, who are perceived as authority figures, set a good example. Or in other words, if one of the normal edit warriors were routinely calling other editors "boneheads", or referring to their edits as such, I'd probably give them a civility warning, and then if they continued, I'd block them. So it sends mixed messages if an administrator is using the same language (with seeming impunity) that other editors might be blocked for!

Thanks for listening, --Elonka 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Sorry for lacking the stamina to elaborate, but it's already an hour or so after my desired bedtime. I wish you luck dealing with the miscellaneously aggrieved parties. -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much.  :) One of the reasons I was so concerned about this, is that I know from experience that the Hedvig Malina article is a "flashpoint" article that most of the parties (on both sides) have on their watchlists. Disputes at that article can rapidly overflow to multiple other articles. I do appreciate your administrative help in this topic area though, and would be delighted if you would stick around to help! The more admins to help stabilize things, the better! In any case, sleep well, --Elonka 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this block. I have grown SO tired of Mary Surratt dancing her way into our dreams and that pathetic little addition detailing her hanging. The only edits I tend to see at that article is that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That blocked user

Hi Hoary! The blocked user Magyar nem ember, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magyar_nem_ember contribs) who made the disruptive edits at article Hedvig Malina returned as IPuser: 195.30.17.81 and user:78.99.230.65. Please check this edit, and his contributions and compare them with user:78.99.230.65's edits, (his contributions).--B@xter⁹ 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or this with this and this--B@xter⁹ 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Magyar nem ember" is blocked as a username. As far as I know, the person who used that username is not blocked as a user. As long as he isn't, he is in principle welcome to edit without logging in via whichever IP happens to be available. This is of course not a license for him to indulge in an edit war, just as nobody else has a license to indulge in an edit war with him. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From User: Magyar nem ember's talkpage: "This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." From User: magyar nem ember 1:This account is a sock puppet of Magyar nem ember and has been blocked indefinitely." This means that he is "Violating WP:SOCK" or not? (+ Do you think that it is a good thing that a racist person is "principle welcome to edit"--B@xter⁹ 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From User: Magyar nem ember's talkpage: "This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." | I think this template is misplaced, but the person who placed it there states on his own page that he's not available for questioning.

From User: magyar nem ember 1:This account is a sock puppet of Magyar nem ember and has been blocked indefinitely." | Yes, no question about this.

This means that he is "Violating WP:SOCK" or not? | I don't think he is violating it when he posts as an IP, no.

(+ Do you think that it is a good thing that a racist person is "[in] principle welcome to edit" | Will you next ask me when I stopped beating my wife? If you're asking me whether I think it's good that racists are allowed to edit articles about this kind of thing, then I'd answer no, I think it's very bad indeed. Moreover, I'd rather that there were hugely more stringent requirements than just "not a racist": would-be editors would have to prove that they were openminded, sceptical, and dispassionate. But this is just my own personal opinion.

Back from what I think to what Wikipedia tends to think collectively. Your own editing history, compounded by the design of your user page, suggests that you may not approach the dreary disputes between some Slovaks and some Hungarians with a neutral point of view. This being so, if you see any editing behavior that both (a) appears to be partisan and (b) appears to break this or that (partisanship-irrelevant) Wikipedia rule, and if you then revert it on the grounds that it breaks some (partisanship-irrelevant) rule, it's likely that your own reversion will be (rightly or wrongly) decried as partisan. So don't revert. Instead, bring the matter up as dispassionately as possible at WP:AN/I or some other place where uninvolved people may see it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, from WP:COI "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." So would you explain to me how could a Slovak racist editor with a name "Hungarians don't belong to the Human race" edit a Hungary-Slovakia related article without violating this or WP:NPOV?

"the design of your user page, suggests that you may not approach the dreary disputes between some Slovaks and some Hungarians with a neutral point of view." You mean that I am not neutral???? Why do you think so? Would you specify this? Design??? You mean I have a "Hungarian pogácsa" on my userpage or what?! And exactly what is the problem with my contribution list???

Should I count how many times did I post a comment at ANI?--B@xter⁹ 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"A suggests that there is a possibility that B is true" does not imply "B is true". Please reread what I wrote, carefully and slowly. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what gives you the "suggestion"?--B@xter⁹ 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I will do what the other Hungarians (87%) did in the last years.... If you want to find out why, read article Hungary–Slovakia relations and ask user:Elonka. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of Hungary–Slovakia relations. I do not know what you are referring to when you talk of what 87% of Hungarians did in recent years, but I am not going to trouble Elonka with a request to explain other editors' allusions or intentions. Now, the article Language law of Slovakia is a dreary partisan battlefield, with many sane and informative parts and also some parts that are so bad that they are unintentionally (if only blackly) amusing. I hope that you can help improve the article. One way to do so would be to source some of what is now unsourced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The design of your user page emphasizes Hungary, Hungary, Hungary, Hungary. As, of course, is your right. Now, if you participate in some editorial dispute that can rightly or wrongly be interpreted as a Hungarian/Slovak dispute, then it's unlikely that you will be perceived as disinterested. Please do not ask me again to spell out what really should be obvious. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on usernames

Hoary do you find usernames like "Jews are not human" "Blacks are not human" and analogous usernames acceptable? Do you think a person with that type of attitude should be editing wikipedia under any account or circumstance? Do you find such name as prima facie evidence of it's user being a fascist editor, or do you view it as something not to worry about? Please answer these questions. Hobartimus (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No I do not find such usernames acceptable. Do I think people who'd choose such usernames should be editing an encyclopedia under these usernames, under innocuous usernames, or with no usernames? No I do not. Choice of such a username is compatible with fascism, but hardly evidence of fascism. Fascist or otherwise, I worry about it. I hope that I have answered your questions. ¶ However, I wonder why you ask what I think is and isn't right. I suspect that you presume that I suppose that this encyclopedia is run as I'd like it to be run. It is not. For one thing, if this were instead Hoaripedia (let's call it), then the right to edit would be not only easier to lose but also harder to get. And another: in Hoaripedia, a lot of other policies would be very different from the way they are now: fascists, racists and the like would be out the door very fast. Here in Wikipedia, however, such people are, by default, entitled to edit, whether you or I like it or not. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation help

A problem with a translation of a few words could be solved very easily and in multiple ways. If you visit this link [5] you see a bunch of irrelevant text and this "If your Hungarian is poor, you can leave us a message in English [[6]]." the word "here" points to a place in the Hungarian wikipedia where there are hundreds of users who could help in translating two words ("nem" and "ember") as Magyar is already available in our own wiki. Or you can request the translation of the whole "sentence". Or alternatively you can use google translate to find out the meaning of these two words "nem" [7] and "ember" [8]. Hope that helped the issue. Hobartimus (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More Marilyn

Well, "that film" has re-appeared in Marilyn Monroe. I've left comments on the talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

First you have "that film" and soon thereafter you have discreet little plugs here and there for this dreck to video. I quote: "Warning! This synopsis contains spoilers". Let's spell it out: she's dead. The non-necrophile majority have got over it; but some people just continue to go rouge. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Reason

I have to ask, "Being silly" is a real reason to block some one now? Now I don't question that s/he had it coming, but being silly, really? By the by, very quick, was it reported at WP:AIV or did you just notice it in the RCs? Rgoodermote  08:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to expend more than four syllables on attention-seeking nitwits and I'm reluctant to aggrandize their silliness by calling it "vandalism". As you said, "s/he had it coming". If somebody wants to report me somewhere for abuse of something or other, then, if I may quote a bad movie, "Make my day." (Not that I mind your polite question, of course.) ¶ I saw a couple of the edits in my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did anything wrong, just was a rather odd block reason and a right funny one at that. Rgoodermote  09:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to satisfy your curiosity. Happy editing! (Me, I'll mostly be editing WP-unrelated stuff for the "RL" for the next few days.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about arrogance. Not only did you not want to answer his simple inquiry you called him an attention seeking moron in return. I understand there is no rigor in Wikipedia's administrator recruit policies but come on, it's as if you're trying to fit the definition by being a carefree asshole. Ytny 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only did you not want to answer his simple inquiry you called him an attention seeking moron in return. I'm rather lost, but since I did talk of "attention-seeking nitwits" I think the "you" is me and the "him" is Rgoodermote. ¶ Rgoodermote had a simple question that I was happy to answer. This shows me blocking somebody for "Vandalism: being silly". Here "being silly" is an optional gloss provided for "Vandalism". "Vandalism" seemed the least inaccurate among several short words/phrases suggested by the blocking software as a terse description of what this person was doing. However, for me "vandalism" still has a link, however tenuous, to the sacking of Rome and the building of an empire; it seemed to aggrandize this IP's puerile behavior, which strikes me now, as it did then, as silly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you thought he wasn't being serious when he vandalized the article, hence the suffix "being silly". That was a bit hard for me to comprehend with all of the pretentious synonyms and weird syntax used in your response, but I managed to figure out what you were trying to tell me so no biggy. Ytny 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMMORTAL SAMURAI (talk • contribs)

No biggy! Considering the wrath of the immortal samurai aka Ytny elsewhere, I tremble and consider myself lucky to have got off with mere accusations of (i) being or resembling or attempting to resemble "a carefree asshole" and (ii) use of "pretentious synonyms and weird syntax". -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Magibon

I've re-nominated her for deletion. Pisomojado (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New sock poppet is back

Hello. You blocked this user because of his multiple accounts in WIkipedia. The user is back as User:Grenzer22, with another sock poppet. Notice that both accounts are the same person because they speak the same things: [9] [10]. Opinoso (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Grenzer22's edits are worrisome. I've already issued one warning and I'll copy it to their talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably sock puppet

Could you please investigate this case ?. It seems to be another user with a sock puppet. Opinoso (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm too busy to investigate their editing patterns and even if I were not too busy I'd be reluctant to do it as I am heartily sick of the matter of ethnic affiliations and skin colors of people in south America. Meanwhile, I have no checkuser privileges. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Vivian Maier

Hello, I have seen your name in the history and discussions of photography-related articles. Could you tell me what you think of this article? I started it after reading a news story about the discovery of her photos. They seem to have created a buzz in the blogosphere, but there are few mainstream media sources so far and I found myself dependent on the blog of the discoverer Maloof for some facts. See my argument here. The question is whether it was premature to start this article in the first place? Perhaps it would be better to delete it for now and wait for some more substantial publication to appear? --Hegvald (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, thanks but... I have just been arguing vehemently against the refname-type footnotes at the VP and for using a list of references to keep footnotes lightweight. You will now find me ungrateful if I revert you... --Hegvald (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oop, crossed edits.

That's a jolly surprise; I like to hear of photographers I've never heard of. (I exclude self promoting photographers and specialists in such dreary areas as sleb portraiture.)

No, there's no reason to delete. True, a blog is not normally a reliable source, but the efforts of the writer of this one have been recognized by newspapers so your use of it is appropriate.

I consolidated the notes+references and then saw this edit of yours. I understand your point and am happy to revert myself or be reverted, but then I'd urge that the notes should be shortened: see Ueno Hikoma for a (not quite consistent) use of the combination of terse notes and detailed reference list. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that Maloof gives bits and pieces about Maier and the story of his discovery of her photos in different places, so it is difficult to find a single good text to refer to. Some is in the subheading of the blog, some in the sidebar, other things in dated blog entries, and yet more in the interview with The Independent. I also found a forum discussion on Flickr, where he had written about it. Hopefully, there will appear a longer article somewhere soon. I was surprised not to find any article in Chicago newspapers through Google News.

Good to know that there is a WikiProject History of photography. I mistakenly posted to the talk page of the WikiProject Photography without looking about for a better place. --Hegvald (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Another problem seems to be that Maloof is a careless writer. (I don't want to make a big deal of this, and don't want to bring it up on the talk page of the article, unless necessary.) So I'd urge care, though not because I think Maloof intends to mislead (I don't think this).

As you've probably noticed, WikiProject History of photography is, uh, somnolent. Hope I don't sound too vampiric when I say that new blood is always welcome. Do please announce your new creation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is not a writer, after all, and at this point he is holding back stuff that he is saving for the book he is planning. I wonder how he will solve the copyright issues. If Maier did not write a will giving her property to her former charges from her early nannyhood (with whom Maloof appear to be in contact), there could presumably be a nephew from France suddenly appearing to claim the rights to her images. --Hegvald (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But WP:BEANS prevents me from adding comments that might be misinterpreted by any such nephew. I just wish Maloof would go over the text material that he does choose to divulge now -- but that's blogs for you. He (or somebody) is certainly doing a good job with the photos themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with user Opinoso

Hello, Hoary. I was wondering if you could clear some doubts that I have, please. There is an user called Opinoso in the article Brazil who is causing trouble. Here goes a summary about him:

1. His behavior has been criticized by at least three other editors beyond me in that article. Grsz11 in here, Debresser in here and here and Ninguém in here.
2. It was found that he fabricated information that his sources does not have. See in here. This is very serious, as it damages Wikipedia image as a reliable enciclopedia.
3. It is not the first time that he enters in trouble and is punished for that. See in here a serious warning given by an Administrator towards him.|
4. He creates trouble with other editors and complains with Administrators like he was an innocent victim while taking words out of its true context. It is also common to him to accuse editors for things he does.

I must confess to you that I do not know what to do with him anymore. What should I do? - --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these allegations against Opinoso interest me very little. However, those by Ninguém and yourself are indeed serious because they charge that Opinoso misrepresented sources. It's now past my bedtime and I am not right now in a mood to look any further, but I believe that the material whose interpretation is disputed is all in Portuguese. If this is so, I cannot be of help because I cannot read Portuguese. The issues discussed seem to arouse passions among a lot of Brazilians but I'd hope that they'd be viewed more coolly by a large percentage of Portuguese editors. (Perhaps wrongly, I assume that the number of editors from Mozambique, etc, is negligible.)

I suggest that you stop complaining about his general conduct (however much this seems to merit complaint) and instead work relentlessly toward sourcing the material that you want to add or that he wants to remove. If there's any dispute over this material, let's hear about it.

A long time ago, I tried to encourage this approach here. Ninguém was cooperative, but not quite enough so. Opinoso did not cooperate at all. That was of course his right (nobody is under any obligation to edit as I propose) but it did not endear him to me. -- Hoary (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But, that is exactly the problem. Ask the other editors if you want to. I'll give as an example the history section: I took paragraphies and more paragraphies from history books written by renowned historians, both Brazilians and foreigners (who have even their own wiki biography articles) and showed to everyone. Then Opinoso appeared and called it "personal theories" or something similar. He got to the point of saying that his grandmother did not agree with me! See here. So, who is right, his grandmother or the historian Thomas Skidmore? Not only that, but when he tried to use sources, as I told you, he was not faithful to them! Can you see how hard is it to deal with someone like him? - --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I should make it clear that I do not value foreign historians over Brazilian historians, or material in English over material in Portuguese. It's just an unfortunate fact that I can't read Portuguese. (Incidentally, I also do not have easy access to any library that has more than a token amount of material about South America in any language.)

Now this is a most interesting diff. Respected historians can and do disagree with each other. If (a) historian S disagrees with historian Y, (b) unschooled grandmother Z agrees with historian Y and (c) historian Y happens to be right, then indeed unschooled grandmother Z beats respected historian S. But of course this doesn't legitimize Opinoso's argument. Instead he has to come up with convincing material from historian Y.

Clearly you are unhappy with Opinoso and Opinoso is unhappy with you. I'm trying to keep an open mind on the matter. (Or more frankly I'm trying to keep out of the matter. And for a period of about one week starting very soon I may well be too busy to do anything with Wikipedia, let alone consider questions about Brazil.) But if you really want to have something done I recommend that you create a list of up to ten of the most convincing diffs relating to any one article (the article itself and/or its talk page), and a short explanatory comment by you. The comment must provide a minimum of information for those who are unfamiliar with the relevant issues in Brazilian social history, and it must be cool and polite. No capitals, no "!". Say nothing whatever about Opinoso (or any other editor); just stick to the content issues. Write it but don't post it anywhere. Then think hard about how it risks being interpreted or misinterpreted by a hostile reader, and revise it defensively. Revise it and revise it, and when you're sure that it's persuasive and bulletproof carefully follow the instructions and advice at here. Yes, this is a request for comment (RFC) on an issue of content, not an RFC on a user. If you start an RFC on Opinoso (or if he starts one on you) without first trying this, people will just yawn and dismiss it as a personal feud. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to adress some of the points you made, if you don't mind:

1. I understand that you don't speak Portuguese. There are few editors in here that are Brazilians and could help on dealing with this issue, unfortunately.
2. About Historian X and Y and someone's grandmother's opinion: I took the work of one British historian, two American historians and four Brazilian historians. See here. Opinoso said that all of them were biased, gave his grandmother's opinion and then made his edits that were later proved to be fabricated once I found an online copy of the book he said that he had used as source and revealed that none of his claims were in it. None. The link to it I already gave it to you.
3. Don't worry, I am not asking you to pick sides, but only to guide me on this issue.
4. Please, do not think as this issue as something like "Lecen x Opinoso". I have never, I repeat, never had any issue with any other editor until now. He, on the other side, cannot say the same. And as I revealed to you, other editors on the article do not apreciate what he does.
5. Do you want to know how we settled the dispute in the history subsection in the article? Me and the other editors we discussed point by point and agreed with a final solution at the same time that we simply ignored Opinoso (because it is him and only him the one who disagrees).
6. I always, always and always keep my head cool down. I try to be polite and I warned Opinoso several times that he had to stop attacking me. Another editor asked for an Administrator help and that's where he got that warning that he would be blocked if he continued doing it. I said that I would ask for his head, it is truth. I was tired of all wrong things he did and I do want him to be banned from here.
7. About the RFC: Although I had several reasons to ask him to be banned from here, from the fact that he fabricates info to personal attacks, I prefered to let him in peace, because I believed that he would simply vanish. Of course, he did not. It was he who opened the RFC, it was he who started reverting without waiting for other editor's opinions. Not me.
8. Beyond me, there other two editors who are on my side at this new dispute. Opinoso has the support of an editor called Auréola that not only write exactly like him, uses the same sources as him, and attack editors for no reason just like him. Opinoso already accused me of being Racist, of being Anti-Brazilian (although I am Brazilian) and having a political Agenda. Hoary, that is not the attitude of someone who has only a different thought on a content.
9. Lastly, I would like to thank you for your patience and help. I do really apreciate it. I will try (again) to discuss the content. However, as long as an editor like Opinoso stays in here, trouble will always arise. - --Lecen (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. I'll get back to you within 24 hours, but now unfortunately am in a rush. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly upset by a lot of factors. For now, let's consider two of them.

First, you claim that Opinoso has misdescribed the content of a book by Darcy Ribeiro -- that in various places O claims that DR has written one thing whereas DR wrote something substantially different or remained silent on the subject. For this charge to stick, you have to do two things. (i) You must demand just where or how DR wrote what he's alleged to have written. DR's book appears here and in the following pages. If something is contentious, ask for the Portuguese-language phrase or sentence, so that it can be found. (ii) We have to find a neutral person who can read Portuguese in order to judge. Portuguese people of course qualify. (Don't look for them; I can try to do so.)

Secondly, you have elsewhere claimed that DR's book, even when correctly understood, is a piece of communist/Marxist propaganda with strong messages of racial hatred.[...] Now, I happen to think that some communists and Marxists can and do write excellent history books and I'm untroubled by part of your longer description of the book. However, I'm also troubled by part. Should DR's book (when represented fairly and accurately) be taken as scrupulous, reliable or fairhanded? Clearly you have one view on this and O has another. Deservedly or otherwise, obviously DR was a prominent writer. I'd have thought that the value of his writing would have received intelligent academic commentary by now. Can you cite some? -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Hoary. I was not clear enough. The matter about mishandling sources and fabricating them has already been discussed and settled. That happened when Opinoso appeared complaining about the history section improvements. Everytime I and any other editor asked him to explain himself on why he fabricated information, he simply ignored or tried to evade the matter. It was not only the Darcy Ribeiro's books. Another example I can give to you: he added to the text that during Emperor Pedro II of Brazil reign was the moment in Brazilian history that most slaves were brought to Brazil. He used a website as an online source. We looked into it, and found out (surprise, surprise!), that such information did not exist in it. About Darcy Ribeiro himself: DR was a renowned radical communist who was banned from Brazil in the 1960s for plotting with the old USSR to make of Brazil a communist dictatorship. But, ignore that. The problem is that his books has passages that attack (unfairly) Jews, Whites and the Catholic Church. Things like "The Jews dominated the Portuguese for hundred of years" in the sense of conquest, of tyranny. I don't remember any Jew conquering Portugal any time, but... You asked me if we could use his book. Well, we could use Mein Kampf from Adolf Hitler to explain Nazism. Should we use it to explain ethnicity? No! At most (at most!) to reveal how ethnicity was perceived in the beginning of the 1940s. But forget all this, this is not the issue anymore.

So, you ask me: what the hell is the problem, then? Here it is: the discussion now is on the Demographics subsection. See, Brazil is the product of three main people: Europeans, Native Brazilians and Africans. Depending on the region, the mixture between those three people might be higher or lesser. For example, African slaves were brought mainly to Rio de Janeiro to work in coffe farms in the 19th century. This is why today Rio de Janeiro has those beautiful mulatto women (descendants of Whites and Blacks). At the end of the 19th century, hundreds of thousands of European immigrants came to Brazil and settled in the southern region and in São Paulo. That is why there in Brazil today most of the population (from 70% to 85%) are whites. What about the Northeastern and Northern regions? In htere, the majority of the population was composed of Native Brazilians (Indians). Once the Portuguese began settling in there, within some time, their offsprings (the Caboclos) became the dominant group as it is today.

So, what is exactly the problem? Well, in Brazil, officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only: Pardo. Pardo, in plain English, means "Brown". But while in the United States a "Brown" person means and Afro-descendant person, in Brazil, as I wrote, it means a much broader category. Translation is not an issue only in this case, also. Another example: in Brazil, the Portuguese word "Mestiço" (Or Mestizo in Spanish) (half-breed) is used to represent any multiracial Brazilian. In Spanish America, "Mestizo" is used to represent the descendants of Spanish and Indians only. Got the point? So, what does Opinoso do? He look in "Pardo" and add its numbers to "Black" category in the IBGE data and call both "Blacks". Ta-dã! Magic! Out of nowhere, all the Indian descendant population of the famous Amazon rainforest (the northern region of Brazil) become Black as an true African. A Pardo in the northeast will probably mean a descendant of White and Indian, while a pardo in the southeast will probably mean a descendant of white and black. As I said, officialy, they are all grouped in one group only. However, in day-to-day life, on Encilopedias, or in other books, they are divided in Caboclos, Mulattoes and Cafuzos, so to avoid the Amazon rainforest example that I gave it to you. So, what does Opinoso do the prove his point? First, he says that IBGE treats both Pardos and Blacks as Blacks only. That is hilarious, because then, if IBGE treats both as the same, why does it lose its time counting both categories on its data separately? What do we call that? Personal research. Second, Opinoso gets DNA studies to prove that everybody is black. So, if in the Northern region the population has 15% of African genes, to him, that means that they are blacks. A person who has 40% of African genes but looks white as an European, to him, it is black. It is the same as to say that the Portuguese are Arabs only because 30% of the population has Arab genes (Portugal was conquered by Arabs in the Middle Ages) even though they do not look as Arabs. I could even go farther, if you want to: Black Brazilians have an average of 48% non-African genes, most of them may come from Portuguese ancestors. Check the link. At least 50% of the Brazilian population's Y Chromosome comes from Portugal. So, if half of the genes of Afro-Brazilians are from White people, are they considered white then? Of course not! Of half of the Brazilians are considered Portuguese? No! Can you see how absurd are Opinoso's claims? - --Lecen (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Above, you write officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only: Pardo. But here, after some reformatting and a lot of abridging, is what I read at Pardo:

In Brazil, Pardo is a racial classification used in the official census by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in censuses since 1950. The word is Portuguese for "brown" or "grey-brown". The other classifications are branco ("White"), negro ("Black"), amarelo ("yellow", meaning East Asians), and indígena ("indigenous", meaning Amerindians). ...

According to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), Pardo is a broad classification that encompasses Brazilians of mixed race ancestry, mulattos, and assimilated indigenous people ("caboclos"). ...

The Brazilian census is based on self-classification, then any person can claim to be Pardo. ...

Races are molded in accordance with perceptions and ideologies prevalent in each historical moment. In the 20th century, a significant part of Brazilians who used to self-report to be Black in earlier censuses chose to move to the Pardo category. A smaller but also significant part of the population that used to self-report to be White also chose to move to the Pardo category. Magnoli describes this phenomenon as the "pardização" (pardization) of Brazil. ...

Unofficially, Brazilians also use a racial classification of "moreno", a word that also means "brown". In a 1995 survey, 32% of the population self-identified as "moreno", with a further 6% self-identifying as "moreno claro" ("light brown"), and 7% self-identified as "pardo". Telles describes both classifications as "biologically invalid", but sociologically significant. ...

As that's Wikipedia, it's not a reliable source. But for what it's worth I understand it as meaning that people are whichever they say they are among the options of branco, negro, amarelo, indígena and pardo. If so, people are free to fantasize (cf the character "Ali G") or even to misrepresent what they believe; but putting aside those extreme possibilities, somebody who would be commonly regarded to be mixture of θ and φ -- where θ and φ are any two of branco, negro, amarelo, and indígena -- would be entirely free to call himself θ or φ or pardo. I see no hint of anyone putting anyone in any category, and don't know what you mean by officialy, all multiracial Brazilians (such as Caboclos and Mulattoes) are kept in one category only unless it's merely there are no categories "Cabloco" or "Mulatto" in the census and it's assumed that such people will call themselves "Pardo".

Is there any pressing reason to go beyond self-reporting when analyzing the "race" of Brazilians? -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The IBGE does not tell people what hey are. It simply asks how the people consider itself. So, someone who is a caboclo might call himself "Moreno" while someone who is a mulatto might call himself also "moreno". Because "moreno" in a free translation to English would be similar to "Brown". However, a caboclo and a mulatto are clearly not the same. When I said "officialy" I meant that IBGE simply gather all multiethinic categories into one: Pardo. However, if you pick a history book, or an enciclopedia, both will be more precise than IBGE. Here are a few examples of the ethnic composition of the Brazilian population:

Brazil: "The whites, in their majority, are descendants of the atlanto-mediterranean people (Portugueses, Spanish, Italian); ; therefore; it is the country with the greatest white population in the tropical world. The mestizos occupy a place of great prominence, being represented by caboclos (descending of whites and amerindians), mulattoes (of whites and blacks) and cafuzos (of blacks and amerindians) the blacks are equivalent to around 10%, while the remaining are yellow, particularly the Japanese and theirs descendants". (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.230)

Northern region: "More than 60% of the population are formed by caboclos, mestizos of white and indian, provenient of crossings done in the region iteself or that came from the northeast region, during the rubber rush (1877-1910). The blacks are very scarce (04%). Beyond the whites, descendants of Portugusse-Brazilians (30%), there exist yellows represented by a minority of Japanese [...] and a decreasing number of indians, many of which still far away from civilization". (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.255)

Northern region: "The northeastern population, of Portuguese origin finds itself intensely mixed with the primitive indian population (from which remain only modest residues) and with black elements, brought of Africa."(Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Brazil", p.258)

Where in the Northeastern region the Africans had a greater impact:

Bahia: "The population of Bahia presents a strong contingent of blacks and mulattoes, concentrated in the Recôncavo [the region around the capital Salvador], beyond numerous caboclos, who predominate in the plateaus [all the remaining area of the state], not mentioning the population of white color." (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 3: Aparelho digestivo – Battle y Ordóñez. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Bahia", p.399)

Maranhão: "The population is concentrated mainly in the plains in the litoral and in the Itapecuru valley with strong ratio of blacks and mulattoes, beyond indian remainders of the tupis and jês groups." (Enciclopédia Barsa in Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 10: Judô – Merúrio. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil, 1987, article "Maranhão", p.355)

According to Opinoso, Pardo and Black are the same, which they aren't. And also according to him, 85% of the population in the northeastern and northern Brazil are blacks, which they aren't. Most are caboclos, followed by a minority of whites and mulattoes and a few blacks. - --Lecen (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

All of your quotations are from a single source. I've no reason to think that this encyclopedia was not edited intelligently or fairly, given what was known at the time. However, not only ideas on "race" but also knowledge of pigmentation have changed. I quote an admittedly brief remark in Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (Harper Perennial paperback, p.229):

[Dr Oliver Curry, 'evolution scientist' from the Darwin@LSE research centre] has perhaps not been to Brazil, where black Africans, white Europeans and Native Americans have been having children for many years. The Brazilians have not gone coffee-coloured: in fact they still show a wide range of skin pigmentation, from black to tan. Studies of skin pigmentation (some of them specifically performed in Brazil) show that skin pigmentation seems not to be related to the extent of your African heritage, and suggest that color may be coded for by a fairly small number of genes, and probably doesn't blend and even out as Oliver suggests.

If true, this makes one's skin color a very different matter from the average skin color of, say, one's 256 great×6 grandparents. So we can talk about either ancestors or color if we want to, but we'd be unwise to mix up talk about both.

Does this newer edition of Enciclopédia Barsa use the same language?

This is congruent with what Goldacre writes, and looks like the kind of thing that articles here should be based on, though they should not be based directly on such papers but instead based on academic works that aggregate or review these papers. -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with user Opinoso, part 2.

You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:

Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ([11] [12]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:

First message: “You have added several pictures of White Brazilians and, maliciously, erased pictures of Black, Mestizos and Asian Brazilians. If you have problems with racism, you should look after a psychiatry medic because, in Brazil, racism it is a crime with no bail and, in the future, you might end up in jail.”

Second message: “Your ignorance manages to scare me. I did not know public education in Brazil was so decadent to the point of producing people like you. [...] You probably have inferiority complex, because you must had wanted to be Nordic White but you are not. With all sure you are not descendant of European immigrants. [...] You are a Pardo boy who wanted to be European. It is really sad. I just warn you to be careful, because racism in Brazil it is a crime and I already have enough proofs to denounce you for this crime and put you in jail [...]. Those are enough motives to keep you behind bars for some years.”

This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ([13] [14]), Sparks1979 ([15] [16]) and Felipe Menegaz ([17]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ([18]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ([19]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ([20]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”([21] [22] [23]) if not “racists” ([24] [25]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ([26]).

Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? --Lecen (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Right then, let's look at the charges:

He accused editors João Felipe C.S (9

Not a charge of racism, though close to one.

10),

Not a charge of racism, though close to one.

Sparks1979 (11

Yes, a charge of racism (in 2007).

12)

Yes, a charge of racism (in 2007).

and Felipe Menegaz (13).

Yes, a charge of racism (in 2007).

Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj (14).

Yes, stunningly rude (in 2007).

He also has no respect for rules or anything (15)

He's insisting on his right to post non-consensus comments on a talk page. There is indeed nothing wrong with doing so, and (in itself) pointing this out does not indicate lack of respect for rules.

and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English (16)

I see nothing wrong with the request.

He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”(17

Yes, a comment that's bizarre at best, rude and/or stupid at worst (2008).

18

Yes, a comment that's bizarre at best, rude and/or stupid at worst (2008).

19)

Yes, an allegation of vandalism. However, it's not immediately clear what it refers to, and since this was almost two years ago I'm not in the mood to spend time looking.

if not “racists” (20

Yes, a bizarre (at best) allegation of racism (2007).

21)

Yes, an allegation of racism (2008).

when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail (22).

Yes, something like that (2008).

Yes, you have established that Opinoso was a highly problematic user in 2007/2008. If I'd known that at the time, I might well have been on his case. But perhaps others were. After all, he was blocked from editing four times in 2007 alone.

I am well aware that Opinoso has got into long and dreary arguments with numerous editors. I am not happy about this. On the other hand a propensity for long-drawn-out squabbles isn't a blockable offense.

Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around?

Oh, this could well be because of a notorious design flaw in Wikipedia. Look, if the head of Wikipedia were not Jimbo Wales but me, the right to edit would be rather hard to acquire and pretty easy to lose. But fortunately or unfortunately, that's not the way Wikipedia is run. I can only block according to the existing rules concerning blocks: if I do otherwise, my blocks will be overturned (and rightly so).

I've never been to Brazil (though I'd like to), I know little about it, and I have very little interest in ethnic affiliation or skin color. I'm an outsider to all of this. I hope these articles improve in just the same way that I hope any other article improves. I'm willing to look at complaints and to act on them: and if they seem called for, to deliver long blocks. I'm also pretty busy. I have little patience for long complaints, no matter how heartfelt. I want recent diffs, with concise and understated comments. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, unfortunately, you keep seeing it as a content dispute. I am not even talking about that anymore. What I am talking is about a problematic user like Opinoso who gets into serious trouble more usually than it should be. I, and other FIVE editors, spent two entire weeks trying to stop Opinoso's anarchy in the discussion about the history section. Only when he was warned by Gwen that he would be blocked if he kept with his behavior was that he stopped and disappeared. That happened two weeks ago. Not a year. Two weeks. Then he reappeared, and I will transcribe exactly what I wrote to Gwen:

"About recent edits that he has reverted, see here. Although it is sourced in the text and backed by a reliable source ("The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians").), he not only reverted but also called it "personal theories". He always does that, putting on check the good intention of other editors. He also cause disruption like on this private conversation that I am having with editor Luizdl, putting my good faith on doubt for someone else in a conversation he was not invited or called to be part of ([27] [28] [29] [30]). The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory. However, to editor Redhill54 (yet another user he calls racist as usual) he said that Pardo is "mixed-race", that is, multiracial ([31]). Why he does that? Why he is getting into contradiction? Isn't he doing all of this just to make my life in Wikipedia a hell? To get "revenge" for "losing" the other dispute about a different matter we had in this same article? Putting on doubt my good faith in conversations that he was not called to; reverting edits I did for no reason; creating my life a hell in the article I contribute to the point of making it locked... isn't that harassment?"

And also:

"Because the first dispute I had with Opinoso I was backed by at least five other editors while he was alone and by himself. And that dispute was about the history section where he accused me of many things and you even warned him. Not ethnics, history. Six editors against one problematic editor like Opinoso can not be considered simply POV. I believe you are being a little bit unfair with me. Now on the ethnics dispute there are three editors against Opinoso. It always him and only him." - --Lecen (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to find the facts here.

You say above:

The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory.

If this is not just your personal theory, let's have some references for it. Please answer on the Talk:Pardo, which is on my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, I will do that, but on the Brazil article. It will not be only the Pardo matter, it will anytime someone writes something that displeases Opinoso in the articles he owns. No matter the subject. Anyway, things are not going as I hoped. I try to reason, I try to talk with administrators, with other editors, and in the end, I am treated like the same as Opinoso. And it's unfair. It is the first time I have issue with an editor before. He, on the other hand had dozens before. I did not act "flawed" and nowhere I was not "carefully" when talking with you, or Gwen or anyone else. And if in any moment I did something that you may had considered as such, I am sorry. I am going to try to mobilize the reminaing editors from the article to deal with the matter. It is us against him, as always. I thank you for everything you did and for the patience you had. I mean it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

About Opinoso, etc.

Hoary, you left this message in my Talk Page:

I think that you are referring to Gwen Gale and myself. I do not see this as a simple content issue and I don't think that she does either. Please read what she and I have written carefully, and then reply carefully. Then we will respond carefully and, where justified, firmly. But don't let the signal-to-noise ratio decline.

This may have been intended to Lecen, since I don't think I mentioned you or Gwen Gale.

Anyway, I have to agree with Lecen regarding the problems in Brazil. In fact, I have pointed those problems (though in other articles, White Brazilian and German Brazilian specifically) before Lecen became involved in the article. There is an enormous difficulty here, because content and behavioural issues get mixed. When behaviour problems are pointed, they tend to be dismissed as "content disputes". When content problems are raised, it is recommended to find a third opinion. But a third opinion is very difficult to find, due to the behaviour problems (Brazilian editors have been chased away from articles on Brazil, particularly on Brazilian ethnicity and demography, by the behaviour Lecen has described above). So we have a vicious circle; we cannot solve behaviour problems, because they are content problems. And we cannot solve content problems, because they are caused by behaviour problems...

There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Brazil. In short, Opinoso wants to edit the page ("Yes, the article may be unblocked and the unreal Caboclo majority informations you added, which are not even cited in Barsa, will be erased.") to remove this part:

The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss] Northeastern[259][dubious – discuss] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss] regions. Bahia[261] and Maranhão[262] are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.[dubious – discuss] (the "dubious" tags were inserted by Opinoso)

He argues by quoting that:

"On the map, one can see that the black population in the Southeast and South of the country is below 40% - notably in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, where it stays below 25%. But in large parts of (states) of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá and in different points of Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí and Tocantins the map shows that blacks are more than 85% of the population."

According to him, this is by the IBGE. But, unhappily, the link he gives as a source ([32]) is not by the IBGE; it is a newspaper report about a publication that should have been issued in May 13th, 2008, but that I can't find in the internet.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about that. The IBGE counts Blacks ("pretos") and "pardos" separately. But other government agencies - notedly the Secretaria de Promoção da Igualdade Racial - sum the "preto" and "pardo" percents for practical purposes (which makes sence, since the "parda" population is subject to the same problems regarding racism and discrimination as the Blacks). This is then conflated into the notion that all "pardos" are Blacks, and therefore have African ancestry. It is by this reasoning - and in no other way - that it is possible to come to the conclusion that 85% of the population of Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, or Piauí, is Black.

All bibliographic sources available (this includes Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro) point in a different direction: that the majority of the population in the Northern Region (where Amazonas, Pará and Amapá are located) is mainly of Euro-Amerindian descent, and even that the majority of the population of the Northeastern hinterland ("Sertão") has such characteristic.

When confronted with this, Opinoso opts out by making generic statements of the kind "all human beings are of African ancestry". Besides, of course, of accusing Lecen of using "personal theories", even "fake theories", and even more of course, posting this gem:

I won't answer Ninguém, because this user is angry with me for months, since I realized he was using Phone Books and surnames of people from Brazilian colleges to claim they are of "Portuguese descent"[28] (as if African Americans who have British surnames are of "British descent"). Since then, this user's account is dedicated to criticize me whatever there is an opportunity.

(This, of course, is a personal attack; and I find it very weird that while I am forbidden from "commenting on other editors", this individual gets along with this bald-faced lie. If you can do something to put an end to this situation, I would appreciate it very much.)

And to complement it, Opinoso states that the word "caboclo" makes no sence, and isn't used by Brazilians. Though, of course, it is much used by Darcy Ribeiro, who even has a whole chapter about "O Brasil Caboclo"... Ninguém (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and more:

Ribeiro may be used as source, he was a famous and renowned anthropologist. But Phone Books and vestibular lists may not. Ninguém (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ninguém, I was primarily writing to Lecen and not to you. But I was well aware that I was doing so on your talk page, and that you'd read it. In fact, I was hoping that you'd read it.

I can agree with much of what you write above, and find some of the other things you say above plausible. Again, I am most dissatisfied with the fact that articles on these subjects turn into battlegrounds, and am prepared to take drastic measures when I know that these are right and that they will stick. On the other hand I will not be swayed by the fact (if it is a fact; I haven't counted) that there's only one of him and six of you: unpopularity is not an offense.

I'm disappointed that Lecen doesn't seem to have responded to the section above on this page, in which I quote Goldacre. I've a hunch that a lot of the confusion results from lack of clarity and lack of scrupulousness over meanings. An imagined example: pardo may have meant both "brown [skinned]" and "multiracial" when it was assumed, or even sincerely believed, that brown skin and mixed ancestry meant the same thing. Now, however, it's known to geneticists that they do not mean the same thing, and this knowledge is starting to percolate elsewhere. Pardo may mean one thing to one scholar and another thing to another; a third scholar opposes its use because of its conflation of two factors that should not be conflated; a fourth uses it as a handy shortcut for what she asserts is a long-lasting misunderstanding; a fifth campaigns against it for ideological reasons that may color, but do not degrade her scholarly work. Meanwhile, the census merely presents it as a label, not (at that place, anyway) attempting to explain what it means by the label; the census bureau perhaps regrets the fact that it did previously explain what it meant by the term. Etc etc. All pure inventions on my part, but I guess there's something to it. So if there's a presentation of one source in which pardo does indisputably have this or that single meaning, I do not want this accompanied by anything that looks like a gleeful "So you see, he was wrong and I was right." I want to see willingness that the one citation, no matter how authoritative, may not be the whole story.

Incidentally I shall be very busy for about a week starting right now. I'll look sympathetically at helpful comments and also at diffs showing new misconduct; I'll probably not read essays (however justified) and I shan't be posting any comment as long as this one. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, did not ignore what you said. I told you that I would answer the matter about ethnicities in the article. Gwen told me that I did not have sources, which I thought it was unfair of her to say that. Here are the sources. Read it. It is interesting as it explains well how Brazilian experts look at the matter since the 1970s. Books from the 1970s up to the 1990s. Opinoso has what? An online newspaper as source. Can't fight that, I confess. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try very hard to be scrupulous. What I see are quotations from a single recent geography book. I have no reason to think that this is not an excellent geography book. However, it's one source, singular. And although it's recent, it predates recent discoveries in genetics. NB I am not dismissing it or complaining about your presentation of it. On the contrary, let's have more of this kind of thing: reliable, recent sources for assertions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? I didn't understand what you mean. Those are not quotations from a single recent book. In the link I gave to you, there are four different books used and their pages included:

• Geografia do Brasil (En: Geography of Brazil), written by Marcos Amorim Coelho and published in 1996 (4th edition).
• Panorama geográfico do Brasil (En: Geographic Panorama of Brazil), written by Melhem Adas and published in 1983 (1st sidition).
• O Brasil e suas regiões (En: Brazil and its regions), written by Aroldo Azevedo and published in 1971.
• Enciclopédia Barsa (En: Barsa Encyclopedia), written by various and published in 1987 in 16 volumes.

Those are books that cover the last three decades: 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Do you want me to get more books? For what reason? Why Opinoso can stay with that single newspaper online source that was not even written by an expert in this field? Those are how the ethnic groups in Brazil are categorized by Geographers. However, Opinoso says that "Everyone has 10% of Black genes". Yes, I don't doubt that, but this is not genetics. That kind of information should be in an article that is focesed in the matter, but not in a subsection that has only one paragraph in the article about a country. I am sorry, Hoary, but I can't follow your thoughts. P.S.: I can send you scans of the pages (they also have graphics that explain the sub-categories of Pardos) so that you can see them by yourself. --Lecen (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I made a stupid mistake there. I'm sorry for that, and for wasting your time writing this additional explanation for me.

Now let's look at the sources:

Geografia do Brasil, written by Marcos Amorim Coelho and published in 1996 (4th edition).

Good.

Panorama geográfico do Brasil, written by Melhem Adas and published in 1983 (1st edition).

Worryingly old, but the material that you cite from it is innocuous.

O Brasil e suas regiões, written by Aroldo Azevedo and published in 1971.

Very old. Better not use "whose descendants constitute the majority of our population" because geneticists didn't know then what they do know now. Even though it may very well be true. Avoid anything that smacks of genetics.

Enciclopédia Barsa, written by various and published in 1987 in 16 volumes.

Looks good, but as I wrote above (start at the top of this page and search within it for "bad science") you should try to see what's in the new edition. However, I realize that you may not be near a library that has it.

So this is the newspaper article. It's short and apparently unsigned. Portuguese is so close to French that I have the very flattering illusion that I can understand at least part of it: On the day that Brazil commemorates the 120th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, Seppir and IBGE present a map of the spatial distribution of the Black population. If I am right, then where is the map?

Uh, it's right here, I think. I see a map that's 9.4MB. I am not going to make yet more of a fool of myself by attempting to interpret it, but I'll make a wild guess that what it says is that there exist small (by Brazilian standards!) areas where such-and-such goes up to 85%. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added three more experts in the area to Brazil talk page: Carlos César Guterres Taveira, Igor A. G. Moreira and José William Vesentini. There there now seven different books about the matter, dated from 1971, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988 and 1996. Notice that all have the same view towards Brazilian ethnics groups.

About the map of the Black population, it is in fact a map of the Pardo and Black population. The more red and darker it gets, more Mestizos exist in that area. You will see that the Northern and Notheastern region are more red, that's because of the high numbers of Caboclos. Mixing Pardos and Blacks it is a mistake, because it may give the impression that there are blacks everwhere that it is red, something that it is not true. The writer of the newspaper article probably added Pardos and Blacks believing that Pardos are African descendants only. However, as José William Vesentini noticed, "these [official] data are very questionable, as they do not take in account the ethnic origin of the people (black or Indian ancestry, etc.), but only the color of skin. Moreover, the notion of 'Pardo' is not very rigorous, as it includes from very dark Mulattoes to Caboclos and Cafuzos." --Lecen (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just added another source, this one by the famous Brazilian historian and geographer Caio Prado Júnior. His book is considered a classic of Brazilian literature. Now it is a total of eight books written by eight different experts. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work finding the additional sources. In the light of what I'm about to say, this may sound sarcastic. However, it isn't. All things being equal, a range of sources is a good idea.

If I understand correctly, the source you mention last above is a 1999 reissue of a 1942 book. If I'm right here, this certainly does not mean that what it says is worthless, but it does mean that what it says should be treated with great care, despite its status as a classic.

Numbers are important but they're certainly not all. If you say that nine, nineteen or ninety-nine respected books all agree on one thing, your argument can be shattered by the careful citation of newer, better informed research, recognized by the Brazilian government, that says something else.

Which does not mean that your position is wrong. Below, Ninguém raises legitimate questions about the nature of this newer work and the way in which it is cited. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The map shows the distribution of the "parda" and "preta" populations added up. As I pointed elsewhere, this may make sence to the SEPPIR, which is interested in the policy aspects of such distribution (quotas and other affirmative action). But it does not implies, contrary to what was suggested in the Talk Page, that the IBGE "counts" "pardos" as Blacks.

At this moment, it is quite clear that Blacks are by no means a majority in the Northern Region. Even Opinoso's sources point exactly to the contrary. Things are more complex in the Northeast, because the region is not homogeneous - the litoral has relied heavily on slavery on the past, especially the litoral of Bahia, Alagoas and Pernambuco, as well as of Maranhão. The hinterland - and possibly the litoral of Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte and Ceará - was not, because its predominant economic activity, husbandry, does not fit well with slavery. This is not to say that there was absolutely no slavery in this subregion, or that there aren't Blacks and "pardos" that are of African descent, of course.

Another thing is that the economy of the Northeast - including the slavery-based regions around Salvador and Recife - underwent a serious crisis before the abolition of slavery, and Northeastern slaveholders sold huge numbers of slaves to the more prosperous Southeast - this may have had some impact in the "racial" composition of the Northeast. Ninguém (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguments such as these, and what you have cited on the talk page, do look impressive. Perhaps it's now time for you to draft your own proposed text. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But there is not text to be proposed. This is what I added to the demographics subsection (only to better explain what is a Pardo and where they can be found): "The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss] Northeastern[259][dubious – discuss] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss] regions. Bahia[261] and Maranhão[262] are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.[dubious – discuss]" The dubius tags were added by Opinoso. As you may have noticed, this paragraphy is taken from the information that can be found in the eight sources that I added in the talk page. In sum, all I think it is necessary is that we need to remove the "dubius" tags and that's it. P.S.: The reason I did not add the Juçaras (mix of Whites, Blacks and Indians) and Ainocôs (mix of Whites and Japanese) it's because they are rare (or at least, not as numerous as the other Mestizos) and should be mentioned (and detailed) in an article that focus better on the subject. --Lecen (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Notes 257 to 262 (and beyond) all cite the one Enciclopédia. You may wish to propose something like this:

The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officially called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (those of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (those of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss],[NNPCEBACSE] Northeastern[259][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] regions. Bahia[261][NNPCEBACSE] and Maranhão[262][NNPCEBACSE] are the exception, as there is a large Mulatto population in both states.[dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE]

in which NNPCEBACSE means "new source note(s) perhaps citing the Enciclopédia but also citing something else if possible". -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could do that. But exactly how? The article is closed and I can't simply write in the talkpage that it should be like that and that's it. --Lecen (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You can suggest it or something similar in the talk page. Rather than "NNPCEBACSE" write "note X", "note Y", etc., and after the suggested passage write out what each of these notes is, for example

"Note Q": Marcos Amorim Coelho, Geografia do Brasil, 4th ed. (São Paulo: Moderna, 1996; ISBN 8523739543), p.28. Template:Pt icon

(NB my bibliographic details are purely imaginary. You'll have to use real ones, of course. Well, you don't need the ISBNs, but it's good to show how informative and helpful you're trying to be. And I always try to provide ISBNs myself, tedious though they are.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would propose this:

The mixed-race* population (or Pardo as it is officially called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (those of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (those of Blacks and Indians).[257][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] The Caboclos forms the majority of the population in the Northern[258],[dubious – discuss],[NNPCEBACSE] and Central-Western[260][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE] regions. In the Northeastern Region[259][dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE], Caboclos also predominate in the hinterland ("Sertão"); in the litoral, particularly in Bahia[261][NNPCEBACSE] and Maranhão[262][NNPCEBACSE] there is a predominance of Mulattos.[dubious – discuss][NNPCEBACSE]

• It sounds strange to use a Castillian word such as "mestizo" when discussing Brazilian demography.

The divide between the Caboclo and Mulatto areas does not follow the borders between the states; rather, in each state, there is a gradient, from a litoranean area (particularly around the biggest cities such as Salvador and Recife), where there is a strong predominance of Mulattos, to the dry areas of the Sertão, where commercial crops like sugarcane or cocoa were not viable and extensive husbandry was the main economic activity, and where a population of Caboclos predominate. Ninguém (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very plausible and helps to explain. But of course every tiny part of it must be immaculately sourced. (Yes, I do realize that this requirement is extremely irritating.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Only to echo Hoary, yes, as I tried to hint elsewhere, every little shred will most likely need to be carefully sourced, written and cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to establish a double standard. Some editors have to be very careful, write very carefully, source very carefully and cite very carefully. Others can just lie, misinterpret and distort sources, hurl insults around, and generally own articles without consequence. Ninguém (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asked for specific advice; I gave it, specifically. I even devised pretty markup for it, and splattered the markup all over it, making various mistakes that I then had to tidy up before hitting the submit button. This was an unexciting use of half an hour of my life. I went to bed, woke up, and now see no sign of an attempt at progress.

Every editor has to cite, source and write carefully. As is well known, this principle is rarely adhered to in Wikipedia, which is brimming with various species of junk. Yes, people can frequently get away with sloppiness. In an article such as "Brazil", however, tempers flare and each side of any argument pounces on the smallest piece of carelessness (actual or imagined) of the other.

If you want me to block Opinoso, start by giving me diffs clearly showing his very recent breaking of rules. (If this sounds too partisan, I'll say that the same offer is open to Opinoso: he's free to persuade me to block you.) If you want me to make a speech in Talk:Brazil or elsewhere, I'm not going to do so, for several reasons that I do not intend to specify here.

My time and patience are finite. I'm willing to expend some of both toward improving articles and proofing them against attempts to degrade them. I trust that you will work toward these ends. I understand that you too may not always have the time and energy to do so. During these periods, please do not use this talk page as a place to make complaints (however understandable) about the unfairness of Wikipedia, etc: I already know, and general complaints are worthless. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (something he has already been warned several times not to do). Also a "blind reversal": [33].

Edit warring, blind reversal: [34].

Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [35], but the source is here: [36]. Article ownership.

Edit warring. Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [37]. Article ownership.

Edit warring, article ownership: [38].

Sheer article ownership: [39].

Edit warring, article ownership, summary edit states "This IS NOT the place to post texts from geneticists to claim a point o view": [40].

Edit warring, blind reversal (reintroducing grammatical mistake), summary edit includes "Do not destroy articles, please": [41].

Edit warring: [42].

Although the reverted edit is sourced, summary edit says "Removing personal criticism about American racial classification, This opinion is not neutral.": [43].

Gaming the system to keep false information in Wikipedia (summary edit states, "Removing unsourced. Brazilian census does not make any differenciation about racial mixture. If Caboclos are counted as Pardos, they're officialy counted as Afro-Brazilian."): [44].

Summary edit says, "Restoring old version of it because of its new unsourced racialist informations". But there is nothing "racialist" in the reverted edit: [45]

Edit warring: [46].

Article ownership: [47].

Attributing dishonest motives ("trying to sell") to other editors: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].

Edit warring: [53], [54], [55].

Attributing dishonest motives ("Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason") to other editors: [56].

Attributing dishonest motives to other editors: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Ninguém (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I (unenthusiastically) wrote If you want me to block Opinoso, start by giving me diffs clearly showing his very recent breaking of rules. You responded by giving me a long list of diffs. I looked at the first. It's from October. October is not "very recent".

I'm not going to look at any more of this list above: I lack the energy to go through a list to see which diffs, if any, occur in a timeframe that makes them actionable. If you want me to look at some of them, then you whittle them down to those that have taken place in the last 48 hours.

Of course, a long list that goes back in time might be very useful if somebody were to start an RFC on this user. But no matter how much anyone badgers me to start an RFC, I am not going to do so. I have several reasons for this, and just one of them is that an RFC on a user is a waste of time unless done very adeptly, and to do it very adeptly takes very careful preparation, and I do not have the time for this.

You may wish to turn your attention to this. The question is posed well, and a few minutes ago, when I last looked at it, nothing in the thread had yet been degraded by any name-calling, etc. I hope that none occurs later; but if it does, I shall be prepared to issue warnings (or, if warranted, blocks) to miscreants, regardless of their standpoint. -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From the last 48h: [63]. Notice this: "Even though there are "some people" trying to sell the idea that most White Brazilians look European, they don't." Nobody ever is simply mistaken or wrong; people who disagree with Opinoso are always acting in bad faith, "hiding" something, or "selling" ideas. Ninguém (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil ethnic groups

Well, I created another section, because the old one is too big and hard to follow. I hope you don't mind. You had told me that in case the view towards ethnics groups had changed since the most recent book I used as source and someone else used it, it would blow away everything I said. It is true, I agre on that. So, I got the most recent edition of Panorama geográfico do Brasil (Geographic Panorama of Brazil, 456 pages) written by Melhem Adas published in 2004 and it is on its 4th edition (the one I used before was the 1st edition published in 1983). On page 268 there is the exact same picture that there was in the first edition on page 103:

Main Brazilian ethnic groups.

The official website of the book is this one. However, you still did not explain to us how we would end the present dispute. The article can not be edited and even if it was, Opinoso would probably revert it or do something similar. Don't you think it would be better if you write something in the talk page? P.S.: The sole sub-ethnic group not found in the picture in Melhem Adas both books is the Juçara, because it is a very rare crossbreed and appears mainly in Maranhão. However, it is mentioned on Aroldo Azevedo and Igor A. G. Moreira works. P.S.2: Melhem Adas book is used in high schools in Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no "magic bullet" that would end the present dispute. I am at times tempted to go into it and give three-month-long blocks to five or more editors (the choice of the five varying from week to week); but if I did that, then within 24 hours the blocks would be overturned and considerable sympathy would be expressed for the temporarily "martyred" editors, who would return with even more vigor and bile. (And I would rightly be "de-sysopped", not that this would be any great loss to either Wikipedia or myself.)

You're right, the article cannot be edited. So please present your new (in both senses) evidence on the talk page, in as cool and persuasive way as you can, and without any mention of any editor. Part of your job is to persuade any newcomer to any dispute there that you are a cool, disinterested, dispassionate, open-minded participant in it. It's very likely that somebody will come along to find fault your new evidence. No matter how pig-headed or inane this objection seems to you, you reply to it coolly, persuasively and politely. (It's even possible that the objection will have some value; please read it with an open mind.) Eventually there will be "consensus" (i.e. agreement among most people) that there is a "consensus" on the issue. Then the article may be edited. (And thereafter, wilful attempts to edit the article away from "consensus" can be treated as vandalism, with the usual penalties.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see that you're following the discussion. Well, I admit (for the first time!) that I was highly ironic and not so mature as i could have been. As you may have seen, the other editor clearly contradicts himself so much that it's hard to take it serious. And his points are nothing more than a compilation of his own twisted personal view of the subject. But, although I was ironic, all I said I meant it, truly. Unfortunately you met me under this circuntance. Everything I do, every little thing I do in here, is based on reliable sources. I deplore, I confess, internet sources. Anyone can write whatever it wants in a website. That's why I always use books written by professionals. You won't see me writing (ever!) anything in here if not followed by a source and its page. Others, however, stick themselves to one source only (Darcy Ribeiro!) and does not give us a single page! Not a single page! Just the name of the book and that's it. And coming from someone who fakes information from this same Darcy Ribeiro's books, how could I react if not in an ironic way? Anyway, at this moment one editor prefered to stay neutral (Rich Farmbrough), another one said nothing that could be considered helpful at all (Slrubenstein), so I will count him as neutral. There are four editors who support my view (myself, Ninguém, Grenzer22 and Elockid). So far, only O. has voted for his own view. Score 4x1. But I will wait a few more days to see if other editors will say something.

Strangely, I am not happy with that. All that, all that, because of a single paragraphy. It took too much time from a lot of people, and took way too much patience out of many more. I told Gwen that it would be a matter of time until someone else complain of O.'s behavior. And so it happened. My behavior was "flawed"? Not so "carefully"? Perhaps "childish"? No, it wasn't. You may not know, but before all this happened, I sent a private message to O. asking to reach a consensus peacefully. He ignored me. I tried to reason with him on the talk page. He was ironic, atacked me, insinuated about my reasons, lied and fabricated information. I asked him repeately to stop with it, he ignored. Only when five other editors moved against him that things settled down. A few days later he returned and started all over again. I was, and forgive me if I am being rude, in a certain way abandoned by the administrators. What I wrote to him was indeed ironic. Yes, it's true. I was not rude, nor I attacked him, or anything similar. Just dry humor at its best. In 72h O. will be back after his block ends. And I'll repeat to you I said to Gwen: it will be a matter of time until another user complain about him and his typical dishonest behavior. I hope this is the last time I will ever bother you. I expect (really!) that next time we'll meet ourselves in a better situation. Thank you for everything you did and for your assistance. I am in debt with you, Hoary. --Lecen (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hoary, the article Brazil was unblocked today. Several editors (Hentzer, Debresser, Marek69, Elockid, etc...) has already made edits in it. One of them, Hentzer, even removed the dubious tags added by Opinoso. I don't know if that was precipated, but since the other editors were warned by me about the ongoing discussion and did not participate into it and have already made changes today, I will asssume they won't be part of it anyway. As the "score" is 4 x 1, I don't think what Hentzer did should be considered wrong, but that's my guess.

Anyway, that is not the reason I am writing to you. An unknown editor has changed the "mixed-race" info in the demographics section for "brown".[64]. I reverted it explaining the reason.[65]. Next he reverted what I did.[66] I will not lose my time reverting it a second time, however.

This unknown editor has no previously contribution in wikipedia. Check his log.[67]

I don't know if he is someone's suckpuppet, as this same someone is blocked until tomorrow. But I know that what he is doing is not right. Brazilian schoolars calls the multiethnic Brazilians "mestiços", that in a direct translation to English it would mean "Mixed one", or more precisely, "Mixed-race". The IBGE, however, calls it "Pardo". In plain English it means "brown". And IBGE does calls it "brown" in its reports written in English. However, in English, a person who is brown is someone who is descendant of white and black, such as U.S. President Barack Obama. And as you you are probably tired of hearing, the Brazilian mixed-race category (or Pardo) has descendants of whites and Japanese, whites and Indians, and also whites and blacks. So, to avoid confusion, it was written "mixed-race" in the text, as Brazilian schoolars calls it, and "Pardo", as IBGE names it. What should it be done about it? I am quite sure that if I revert it this unknown editor will do it again. And opening a discussion to deal with an unknown editor is not worth it. --Lecen (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's just take pardo for now. Thank you for not reverting; I've raised the matter on the article's talk page and I hope I've done so in a way that won't give rise to much bickering. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I answered there. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your approach.

As you may notice, I've also asked there for reliable sources for seemingly wild assertions about the work of a geneticist.

(Not that I care either way about ancestry or skin pigmentation in Brazil or either of the nations where I've lived. We're all from Africa originally and some of us get sunburned more quickly than others.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote there, the issue is not being of African descent, but to prevent unwarned or not well learned readers from misinterpreting the text by believing that a "brown" category represent a single ethnicity such as "white", "black" or "yellow". About the unknown editor, I couldn't care less. This is the second one that appears only to cause disruption (it's quite obvious that he doesn't want to be a legitimate part in the discussion). Anyway, the matter about Caboclos and 85% black population can be considered settled and you shouldn't worry about that anymore (or at least for the present moment). We could also make the translation of "Pardo" to "Brown" but followed by the "mixed-race" or "multiethnic" noun. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)