Hi Rauzaruku! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)
Sophus Bie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I just wanted to say that your contributions are quite impressive for such a new account. I'd say you hit the ground running, but judging by the topic of your edits, instead, you hit the water swimming! Happy editing! Sophus Bie(talk)13:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Portuguese language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Rauzaruku, you need to understand that calling people "psychopaths", "mentally ill", is unacceptable. You'll certainly be blocked pretty soon if you continue doing that. This is not like the PT Wiki where everyone can do whatever he or she wants. Usually the people who do that are civil-POV pushers (take a look at the wikilink, it's a good read).
Something else: you added this to American (word). Nowhere the source provided says that the word Estadounidense is used to "offend or satirize the Americans, [and] is used by extremist left-wing politicians (communists)". It doesn't even mention communists. People get topic banned for not being faithful to what sources say.
One warning, no more: any more posts like this one [1] may result in sanctions, a topic ban at least. Don't call other editors "cowards" for demanding sources, they're required and you know it. I don't see a case for the use of Estadounidense as an extreme insult, at least nothing like what you assert. Christiano has apologized, but you've continued with increasing aggressiveness. Please treat other editors with respect., and please avoid using articles on language (or any other article) as a soapbox. Acroterion(talk)12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando de Abreu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You're obviously unfamiliar with the customs that developed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics over the years. Also, you might have a look at WP:BRD to learn Wikipedia standard procedure in content dispute.
What I know is that: the medal tables are filled anyway, because in the same article I'm seeing tables with different medal and time orders. So do not talk to me about rules. You, when you fill the meda tables, not follow and don't observe the actually order of the frames. I'm arranging them in a logical way: order of importance of the medals (gold-silver-bronze) + date order (first to last medal). What are you complaining about? I'm just fixing a giant mess.Rauzaruku (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "giant mess". For years, the order has been this: date (latest top, earliest bottom), event (by IAAF order, see virtually every Wikipedia article on an IAAF event). This has been consensus for years. Now, this "new order" you're talking about, where has it been discussed if I may ask? --bender235 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a rule, just a "consensus". So, this consensus is based in an anti-natural order and horrible way to read the medals logically (gold medals have the bigger importance, my brain explodes reading a bronze medal above a gold medal, or all mixed anyway.). Cool. You need to think who started this absurd and reason that this order does not provides. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you think of the established order, before you start this kind of wide-spread modification you could've at least asked if the consensus had changed. I supposed you do that now, before creating any further damage to Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just helping the reader of Wikipedia not see a medal table all messy and without logical organization. And this "bronze medal first, gold second and silver third" or "mixed date order" don't help nobody. I suggest you ignore this crazy consensus. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unable to grasp what I just wrote. We had logical organization. We used the IAAF order of events, not some you just made up. --bender235 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't use any logical organization. Gold medals are the most valuable, and the reader need to see them first, to do a organization into their minds. It's useless to put medals in order that the athlete won. That does not matter to the reader. The reader wants to know the golds, silvers and bronzes the athlete won, and starting from the first to last, you still make stupid to put on the contrary, to leave everyone confused. It is not possible for the reader to make a decent compilation of his head, with everything so messy. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to impose your order of medals on every article? There's still an ongoing discussion, far from any consensus. --bender235 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "medals in the order they were taken", this is already done by the timeline that is placed in the middle of articles, that huge frame. The medal table was a mere repetition of the timeline, so it has to be even modified to do any sense.
I'm not only changing it, I'm standardizing medal tables that had more than one method in themselves. Don't make sense to have a medal table messy to the point of not having the same methodology in itself.
I found a lot of articles with the table already adjusted the way I'm doing, so this old table does not have standing in the way you think.
Consensus is not a rule, I'm going to change because the current table does not make sense, it's horrible to read, and I'm not seeing that passion throughout the table as she was. Rauzaruku (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article César Cielo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ThaddeusB -- ThaddeusB(talk)03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've run into a number of your edits cleaning up swimming related articles and wanted to let you know how much your work is appreciated. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBiketalk22:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. The situation you reported is too complex for WP:AIV -- it was not simple vandalism or obvious spam. Please open a thread at WP:ANI if you have an incident that needs administrator attention. —Darkwind (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are both getting exactly the same message here. I've fully protected two pages for 3 days. I expect to see you discussing the changes on the talk pages during this time and attempting to come to some sort of consensus. You are both technically in breach of the 3RR, but I feel that it is best for the project to try and get you both discussing the changes you're trying to make.
I'm open to discussions, Al Lemos aren't, he just reverts me. Where I can ask for an adiministrator to block him, if he continues with this type of thing, before 3 days? This user just wants to block me, and I don't want to do any edition war. Rauzaruku (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
November 2013
Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pig (disambiguation) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds21:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manual of Style changes
Hello Rauzaruku, I've noticed all of the swimming articles you have written and want to thank you for all the information you have added to Wikipedia. There are a couple of things you might want to pay attention to so the articles better fit with the WP:MOS.
Dates should not use ordinals in the form 21st of August, Wikipedia style is just to say 21 August or August 21 - per WP:DATEFORMAT
Ordinals in English are ridiculously complicated. You may want to read English numerals#Ordinal numbers so you can get them right.
Wikipedia style is to not write USA, but US, U.S. or United States per WP:NOTUSA.
I notice in the swimming articles, you use the phrase "All times shown are in seconds/minutes." I think it would more sense to say "All times are in minutes and seconds" or something like that.
Hello, I've seen you being involved in an edit war in Arena Corinthians. I do agree with you that it's not right for user 130.88.164.18 to continue to delete your edits, but that does not mean you have to violate WP:PA, as you did with this edit. The section headline counts as violating WP:PA. I suggest that you do not send retorts back to him, and rather report everything and keep quiet. Good day. TheTriple M01:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rauzaruku. I reviewed the sources and the text you added do not match the sources on some instances. I could not easily rewrite it, so I invite you to reformat the text if you think it still should be added and have it agree with the sources. In the meantime, I reverted the article to the WP:GA version. Would you mind to discuss changes on the talk page before changing the article, to avoid an edit war?Legionarius (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Arena Corinthians".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk03:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks
It is considered a personal attack to make unfounded accusations of vandalism towards another editor. "Vandalism", on Wikipedia, has a very specific meaning: "the deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia's integrity". Users who disagree with your edits are not vandals, and accusing and reporting them as such is regarded as abuse. The same goes for your prejoritive claim that User:Legionarius is a single-purpose account - whilst he may have a particular interest in a subject, he has edited a variety of articles and does not fit the pattern of an SPA. I strongly suggest you refrain from this sort of hyperbole in future, and restrict yourself to discussing the content, not the contributor. Yunshui雲水13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rauzaruku, I recently reviewed your two requests (late October) for copyedits on articles concerning Brazilian political figures and propaganda. In my judgment, neither article is suitable for a copyedit at this time, though the current text does need work. I recommend that when the edit warring slows down, and all sides of the controversial issue are suitably treated and sourced, you may request a copyedit again. Also keep in mind that there may be other relevant WikiProjects to consult for other kinds of cleanup - Copyediting specifically treats grammatical style and tone, and formatting of Wikipedia articles. If a requested article has other cleanup issues that have not been identified, a copyeditor may only tag an article for those things and move on without actually copyediting, as I have done. Thank you for your diligence in helping to curate Wikipedia! Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 10:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for casting aspersions, harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
You were told to stop, you decided to escalate instaed. The block duration has been chosen after an examination of your block log.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
