User talk:Coltsfan/Archive 2

Emmanuel Macron

In the Talk:Emmanuel Macron page, there is an anonymous troll erasing your comments and calling you a "communist militant". I reverted it for now, but you might want to take some action against the personal attacks. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Dimadick! He is just another "keyboard warrior". Coltsfan (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Coltsfan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Coltsfan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi Coltsfan. It doesn't appear you were notified of WP:AN3#User:Coltsfan reported by User:49.180.99.171, so I'm just doing so as a courtesy. It also appears that IP who started that AN3 discussion is also IP 49.195.121.29 and most likely the same person behind SacredGeometry333. My suggestion to you would be to add these and any more IPs pr accounts which seem suspicious to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BDMKK. You can do this by going to WP:SPI and clicking on "How to open an investigation". An admin might step in and block these accounts without an SPI, but starting one can sometimes help speed things along. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Marchjuly. But this guy simply changes his IP and has evaded many blocks, so keep reporting it won't do much. The thing is just to stay vigilant. But i'll hear your advice. Thanks. Coltsfan (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

An admin might be capable of a WP:RANGEBLOCK of these IPs since they all seem to be IP 49's, but I don't know much about the technical side of IP blocks so not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is nothing in common for these IPs except the 49, a rangeblock is not practical. But prominent articles like Jair Bolsonaro can easily be semiprotected, and that might be almost as good. Let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: There does seem to be sufficient behavioral evidence to tie since IPs 49.180.99.171 (talk · contribs), 49.195.121.29 (talk · contribs), and 49.181.144.250 (talk · contribs) to at least to SacredGeometry since they all have been basically WP:FORUMSHOPing over the dispute between SacredGeometry and Coltsfan. I was thinking about adding to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BDMKK, but page protection might be a better solution in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Add IP 49.195.133.159 (talk · contribs) to the list as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added the 'User' template to the above IPs to make it easier to search. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are some range contributions to look at: Special:Contributions/49.195.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/49.180.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/49.181.0.0/16. We can't justify /16 blocks for this level of abuse, but something smaller could work. Just have to identify some smaller ranges. EdJohnston (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Understand and thanks for the clarification. I'm not familiar with technical aspects of a range block; I've just seen it done once or twice. FWIW, I have no connection to the current content dispute or to any of the previous socking. I only stumbled upon this because of IP(s) were posting basically forum shopping on pages that were on my watchlist. If WP:PP is a better way to handle this, then that's fine. I do think though that the IP will be back since there does seem to be a bit of NOTHERE involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly, EdJohnston, protecting the pages seems to be a way more productive thing than just keep blocking or engaging in EW. I appreciate all the tips and inside thoughts you guys had. Thank you. Coltsfan (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly, EdJohnston, Bbb23, just so you know, in the past few days, someone has been trying to log in in my account (unsuccessfully, i might add), from IP addresses 49.195.198.183 and 49.180.71.19 (according to the emails i received). I think we both know who it is. The level of harassment is reaching new heights. With all these WP:EVADEs and now this, i think all olive branch are out. He has also sent me messages saying he won't quit, apparently. Some people have a lot of time in their hands, i guess. But keep your eyes open on your accounts. He might try something with you too. Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your attempt to still try and engage is admirable, but you probably should just WP:DENY and start a new SPI when you come across these accounts. When someone announces that they have hundreds of accounts like IP 49.195.72.165 did in that edit sum, you probably not going to have much chance reasoning with them or convincing them to stop, and they pretty much don't care whether another IP gets blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Patriota

Até aqui? Agora você foi longe demais! Por que essa obsessão em classificar partidos conservadores como extrema-direita? Você é um usuário antigo e experiente, sabe que não pode usar uma fonte primária com um vídeo do YouTube subjetivo a opiniões pessoais. O Estadão claramente e explicidamente classifica o partido como sendo de direita e você, confrontado com isso, primeiro muda para "Direita a extrema-direita" e depois coloca "Extrema-direita" removendo fontes confiáveis? Por favor, deixe nossas diferenças de lado, tenha bom senso e seja honesto. Não se trata da nossa disputa pessoal e sim dos leitores. Você pode pelo menos esperar por mais opiniões? --Dryerpiton (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Dryerpiton, Voce e um usuário desonesto, engajou em Sock puppery, tentou enganar outros usuarios. Nao alegue perseguiçao. Voce ja foi revertido por multiplos usuarios. Alem disso, sei que voce vem tentando hackear minha conta. Recebi diversas notificaçoes a respeito da tentativa de violaçao da minha conta de usuario. Eu falei, por mais nobre que voce julga ser sua caus a, voce usa caminhos tortos. Nao importa quantas contas criar, quantos WP:EVADE engajar, as paginas continuarao a ser protegidas, suas multiplas contas serao bloqueadas. Estas lutandouma batalha perdedora. As regras foram feitas para serem observadas e seguidas. Ate agora, voce rejeitou as regras, rejeitou consensos proprios, agiu de ma fe para enganar outros usuarios e engajou em EW em varios artigos. Eu tentei dialogar. Outros tambem tentaram. Voce nao sabe seguir regras, nao esta afim de seguir consenso e nao quer dialogar. Pois bem. Nao havera dialogo mais. Ja foi instruido por outros usuarios a parar de tentar. E e o que farei. Nao usaras a wikipedia para qualquer fim nefasto que tens em mente. Continuaremos a proteger o conteudo dos artigos e garantir a neutralidade deles. Nao a sua versao distorcidade de neutralidade, mas a neutralidade verdadeira, segundo as regras. If you can't understand that, there is nothing i can do. Coltsfan (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

SPIs

Hi Coltsfan. You should format any new SPIs you start at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SacredGeometry333 properly by going to the WP:SPI and clicking on "How to open an investigation:". Just trying to start a new one by copying and pasting the heading of a previous is going to create unnecessary clean up for the SPI clerks, etc. I believe this was already pointed out to you somewhere by Bbb23 when you did the same thing for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SacredGeometry333/Archive#1 December 2018. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Jair Bolsonaro

Also -- why did you delete the mentions to hate speech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, would you like to talk about the links of Bolsonaro with militia? I don't really see how the case can "ongoing". The evidences are multiple, public and date back from 2003. The question is not if the Bolsonaros have links with the militia -- they openly assume they do have. The question is whether these links are "criminal". I did my best to make it clear in my edit their version of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakula34 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Get busy. There's a lot of articles on Wikipedia 'right now' which have the 'new' President of Brazil in office. Articles like Brazil, President of Brazil, List of current heads of state and government, to name a few. You're the one who's asserting the the Brazil presidency is vacant. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The presidency is not vacant. The old president is still current president until the new one takes office. As the sources that i pointed out say. Coltsfan (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Temer's tenure ended at mid-night. Check over all the Brazil presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, is there a source for that? Because portuguese wiki and english wiki show contradictory information. And there is actually a featured article, while the one in english has only one source (that don't reference the dates). Makes a huge credibility gap. Coltsfan (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Antonio Basto: can help you with that. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are you being pig-headed. If you change one or two articles, you must change them ALL. Either do that, or leave them alone. PLEASE. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not how this works. All content in wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable source. It's simple. If you are right, and i'm wrong, you shouldn't have any difficulty finding sources disproving me. Right? So, GoodDay show me the source you got that information from. Coltsfan (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

One more try. By changing to January 1, 2019 at Michel Temer (for example), you're making it inconsistent with the 35th President, 34th President etc etc. Then there's the full term vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, this is not difficult to understand. Please, save us time and read WP:V. Two wrongs, don't make a right. Since all the articles are wrong, and this one is right, your solution is to make this one wrong too so they are in harmony? Don't work like that. I'm not asking for you to move hell and earth. I'm asking for one, simple, source. One source. Just the one. You got one? No? Then, WP:OR. Coltsfan (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU, implement the 'oath of office' dates on ALL the presidents & vice presidents articles, where required. DO it for ALL of them. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I will, in good time. But, right now, we're talking about one specific article. What's on the other articles is completely irrelevant for that one. Get it? I'll write it down again so you can understand, in caps, the way you like it. NO SOURCE MEANS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. ALL CONTENT IN WIKIPEDIA MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO A RELIABLE SOURCE. Have a nice day. 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Coltsfan (talk)

If you won't, then leave the Temer article alone. Because all you're doing it throwing out of sync with the others. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I just checked it out, and you are the one that made the changes in the other articles. YOU. And back then, you didn't presented reliable sources either. So you are asking us to fall in line to a "standard" that you created via WP:OR. That is very disingenuous of your part.

I've opened an Rfc at Temer. If you can think of a better place to get as wide an audience as possible, to straighten out Brazil's 'fuzzy' approach to this topic? Then by all means present it. GoodDay (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There's also the pre-1990 presidents & vice presidents, which have their departure dates as March 14, rather then March 15. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You were not honest with me. I thought that those dates were there for a long time and you were trying to keep the uniformity of the dates. But no. You made the changes, not long ago, without sources, in the other articles. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. Coltsfan (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget the vice presidents bios. There dates also must be changed, to coincide with their respective presidents. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And they are. Coltsfan (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

When & if you complete all those articles, there's quite a huge volume of more related articles, which also will need dates fixed. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Being done. Coltsfan (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

..and you're making it worst, with incomplete edits. The early presidents have November 14/15 dates, which need correction. All need to have their dates fixed. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You are asking me to make the changes, i'm trying. But it gets more difficult when people (YOU) keep reverting for no reason, and without presenting sources. Coltsfan (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If you guys watched today's inauguration as I did, you will have seen that Mr. Bolsonaro was declared by the President of Congress to have taken possession of the presidency of the Republic for the term of office from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022. Tomorrow we will have that printed in the Congressional Journal. Antonio Basto (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the Senate TV Youtube Broadcast of today's inauguration of President Bolsonaro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cGaJJwJ6is). Starting at 27 minutes and 34 seconds and ending at 28 minutes and 09 seconds, the President of Congress declares Bolsonaro and Mourão invested as President and Vice President of the Republic, respectively, both for the term of office from 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2022 (he says the words "trinta e um de dezembro de dois mil e vinte e dois", that is "trirty first December, two thousand and twenty two"). You, Sir, have filled the List of Presidents of Brazil article with incorrect end of term dates, without appropriate discussion, and several official sources, including this broadcast, prove that the presidential end of term date is 31 December. Antonio Basto (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you forgot. I finished up the rest of the Brazil vice presidents. I hope you & AB can come up with a solution for this 'fuzzy' dates problem. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

ok. This is the link to the official record of the Congressional Joint Sitting of 1 January 2019, held for the inauguration of President Bolsonaro and Vice-President Mourão: http://www.camara.leg.br/internet/escriba/escriba.asp?codSileg=54479 . This comes directly from the website of the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil. It is the official transcript of the Joint Congressional sitting held for the presidential swearing-in. It is recorded that the President of Congress said: "Com os poderes que me são outorgados pela Constituição Federal, declaro empossados nos cargos de Presidente e Vice-Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil o Exmo. Sr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro e o Exmo. Sr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, respectivamente, para o período de 1º de janeiro de 2019 a 31 de dezembro de 2022." You guys can copy paste this to Google Translate and see that in English it will read (with the usual Google Translate imperfections) "With the powers granted to me by the Federal Constitution, I hereby declare that the President and Vice-President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, Mr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro and his Exmo. Mr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, respectively, for the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022." A more correct translation would be "With the powers granted to me by the Federal Constitution, I hereby declare invested as President and Vice-President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Most Excellent Mr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro and the Most Excellent Mr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, respectively, for the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022." Antonio Basto (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition to that, the official transcript of yesterday's Joint Congressional sitting, in the link provided above (http://www.camara.leg.br/internet/escriba/escriba.asp?codSileg=54479), contains the transcript of the moment when the First Secretary of Congress read out the instrument of investiture that was signed by Mr. Bolsonaro and by the other authorities. The instrument of investiture has the following text: Às 15 horas dia 1º de janeiro de 2019, perante o Congresso Nacional, reunido em sessão conjunta de suas Casas, no plenário da Câmara dos Deputados, nesta cidade de Brasília, Capital da República Federativa do Brasil, sob a direção da Mesa do Congresso Nacional, presidida pelo Sr. Senador Eunício Oliveira e secretariada pelo Sr. Primeiro-Secretário, Deputado Giacobo, integrando ainda a Mesa o Presidente da Câmara dos Deputados, Deputado Rodrigo Maia, o Sr. Presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal, Ministro Dias Toffoli, a Procuradora-Geral da República, Raquel Dodge, e o Primeiro-Vice-Presidente da Mesa do Congresso Nacional, Deputado Fábio Ramalho, compareceram o Sr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro e o Sr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, que, nos termos do art. 78 da Constituição Federal, foram solenemente empossados nos cargos de Presidente e Vice-Presidente da República, respectivamente, para os quais foram eleitos no dia 28 de outubro de 2018, e diplomados pelo Tribunal Superior Eleitoral no dia 10 de dezembro do mesmo ano, para o período de 1º de janeiro de 2019 a 31 de dezembro de 2022. Os empossados proferiram, na forma do citado artigo da Constituição, o seguinte compromisso: “Prometo manter, defender e cumprir a Constituição, observar as leis, promover o bem geral do povo brasileiro, sustentar a união, a integridade e a independência do Brasil.” E, de conformidade com o disposto no art. 65 do Regimento Comum do Congresso Nacional, Luiz Fernando Bandeira de Mello Filho, Secretário-Geral da Mesa do Senado Federal, lavrou o presente termo, que é assinado pelos empossados e pelos membros da Mesa que dirigiu os trabalhos da sessão. Just copy paste that to Google Translate, and you will confirm the following English Translation, CONFIRMING THAT THE END OF TERM DATE IS 31 DECEMBER 2022, NOT 1 JANUARY 2023: At 3:00 pm on January 1, 2019, before the National Congress, gathered in a joint session of their Houses, in the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies, in this city of Brasília, Capital of the Federative Republic of Brazil, under the direction of the National Congress Bureau , chaired by Mr. Senator Eunice Oliveira and secretary of the First Secretary, Deputy Giacobo, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Deputy Rodrigo Maia, the President of the Federal Supreme Court, Minister Dias Toffoli, the Prosecutor -Gerald of the Republic, Raquel Dodge, and the First Vice-President of the Bureau of the National Congress, Deputy Fábio Ramalho, attended Mr. Jair Messias Bolsonaro and Mr. Antonio Hamilton Martins Mourão, who, according to art. 78 of the Federal Constitution, were solemnly sworn in as President and Vice President of the Republic, respectively, for which they were elected on October 28, 2018, and graduated by the Higher Electoral Court on December 10, the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022. The nominees issued, in the form of the aforementioned article of the Constitution, the following commitment: "I promise to maintain, defend and comply with the Constitution, observe the laws, promote the general good of the Brazilian people, sustain the union, integrity and independence of Brazil." And, in accordance with the provisions of art. 65 of the Common Regiment of the National Congress, Luiz Fernando Bandeira de Mello Filho, Secretary General of the Bureau of the Federal Senate, drafted the present term, which is signed by the delegates and members of the Bureau who directed the work of the session. Antonio Basto (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we assume Coltsfan, you no longer dispute Antonio Basto's findings? GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No at all, but i definitely ceased giving a sh*t. Sorry. Coltsfan (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Just making sure. It's difficult to keep all those related articles in sync. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Jean Wyllys shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Coltsfan reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: ). Thank you. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)