User talk:Bopie
Last warning[edit]
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Jair Bolsonaro, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Coltsfan (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- open you eyes. can't you read?? it's dupicate content. also the language is bashfull and outright laghable. might as well let any personal attacks get posted on wiki withouth justification. Bopie (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- The content is backed by reliable source. According to WP:V, all content must come with a source, and this parameter is fulfilled here. If the content doesn't fall in your own political biases, that doesn't matter. We have the opinion of a noticeable and awarded journalist/author (Glenn Greenwald) and a notorious website, and, like i said, it's backed by WP:RS, following the parameters established at WP:V. If you continue to vandalise the article, santions might be aplied agains you following the blocking policy. Coltsfan (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- you serriously call "News.com.au wondered whether Bolsonaro was "the world’s most repulsive politician" relevant information that needs to be added?? it's a hit piece blog post by some no name. and yes, greenwalds labelling IS DUPLICATE CONTENT. he already been called a mysoginist in the same section no less. this is just piling on nonsense insults. definitely not enciclopedic. Bopie (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- News.com.au is a known website and their opinion is relevant enough. And it's not duplicate because he is not being called 'misogynist' by the same person, nor the same source or the same context is used. Censoring criticism is PUSH POV. Coltsfan (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- just add grenwalds link to the first time he was called that. this is piling on and preachy. it's not a neutral article if all you're doing is posting insult. Bopie (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Any criticism can be labeled as "insult", if the party involved doesn't like it. So, so far all your argument is based on your own personal opinion and biases. Coltsfan (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- criticiams that are laid out and reasoned are criticisms. Calling someone vile, mysoginist or hatefull, etc, withouth giving a reasoning is an insult. Bopie (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are other sources who share people with the same opinion (such as this one and this one, for instance). It's a recurrent criticism that is thrown against him, by multiple people and sources. End again, criticism can be labeled as "insult" by anyone if the said person don't like what's been said. For instance, a corrupt politician don't like to be called "corrupt", to him it's an insult. Are we gonna bow down to his desires or we just report what is said as long as it's backed by WP:RS? Censorship is never the answer. Coltsfan (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- the fact that he's insulted by multiple people doesn't make it a valid political argument or criticism. also, adding it each time is duplicate contend and throws the tone of the article from a fact based to a bashfull emotional one. Bopie (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Once again, you, on your own bias, is labeling criticism as "petty insult". Read WP:V. If something is backed by multiple WP:RS. And since you are not respecting the WP:status quo of the article while the discussion is happening, i'll have no choice but to request an intervention by an adm. You were warned multiple times and you conciantly chose to ignore it, since you don't want to discuss the subject. Coltsfan (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- the fact that he's insulted by multiple people doesn't make it a valid political argument or criticism. also, adding it each time is duplicate contend and throws the tone of the article from a fact based to a bashfull emotional one. Bopie (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are other sources who share people with the same opinion (such as this one and this one, for instance). It's a recurrent criticism that is thrown against him, by multiple people and sources. End again, criticism can be labeled as "insult" by anyone if the said person don't like what's been said. For instance, a corrupt politician don't like to be called "corrupt", to him it's an insult. Are we gonna bow down to his desires or we just report what is said as long as it's backed by WP:RS? Censorship is never the answer. Coltsfan (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- criticiams that are laid out and reasoned are criticisms. Calling someone vile, mysoginist or hatefull, etc, withouth giving a reasoning is an insult. Bopie (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Any criticism can be labeled as "insult", if the party involved doesn't like it. So, so far all your argument is based on your own personal opinion and biases. Coltsfan (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- just add grenwalds link to the first time he was called that. this is piling on and preachy. it's not a neutral article if all you're doing is posting insult. Bopie (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- News.com.au is a known website and their opinion is relevant enough. And it's not duplicate because he is not being called 'misogynist' by the same person, nor the same source or the same context is used. Censoring criticism is PUSH POV. Coltsfan (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- you serriously call "News.com.au wondered whether Bolsonaro was "the world’s most repulsive politician" relevant information that needs to be added?? it's a hit piece blog post by some no name. and yes, greenwalds labelling IS DUPLICATE CONTENT. he already been called a mysoginist in the same section no less. this is just piling on nonsense insults. definitely not enciclopedic. Bopie (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- The content is backed by reliable source. According to WP:V, all content must come with a source, and this parameter is fulfilled here. If the content doesn't fall in your own political biases, that doesn't matter. We have the opinion of a noticeable and awarded journalist/author (Glenn Greenwald) and a notorious website, and, like i said, it's backed by WP:RS, following the parameters established at WP:V. If you continue to vandalise the article, santions might be aplied agains you following the blocking policy. Coltsfan (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The one with a bias here is you. it's all over your page. you're an obvious leftwinger (democrat) and you feel entitled judge the politicians of brazil. maybe you see this guy as a natural enemy to your idiology. to that i say, fine! but keep it enciclopedic and repeating that he's a misogynist for example multiple times withouth further context is not enciclopedic, it's bashfull and makes it come off as petty, (politically motivated in your case) insults. as do things like the world’s most repulsive politician, what is the freaking context?? in itself this is nothing but a personal attack. an insult Bopie (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have never been reverted due to idiological editing. On the contrary, when i caught people editing tendentious and trying to do PUSH POV, they always resorted to the same argument "No, the bias is you!". You are not the first to use this argument, and won't be the last. That only shows you don't understand what this wiki is all about. After all, i'm not the one trying to censor "bad things" in an article of a politician i support. I said what i had to say. You were warned about the disruptive editing. Wrong or right, persisting in this attitude usually ends on automatic block. Like i said, you have been more than warned. Coltsfan (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- you're the one who brought up bias and i never removed relevant criticism. only insults, but your aggressive attitude towards the negative protrayal of the individual even at the expense of objective neutral point of view writing shows your bias. that and the fact that your proudly display your politics on your page hints that you might agressively push your own ideology. even in a foreign country. Bopie (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- What is said on my user page is not relevant. What matters is my editing. And so far, i never been blocked once, or not even a single one of my edits where reversed for any political biases. People here are allowed to have their political opinions, as long as they keep to themselves. And don't matter what country it is, Brazil, Japan, Russia... WP:V is valid for all articles in this wiki. And disruptive editing is also always the same. Coltsfan (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- you're the one who brought up bias and i never removed relevant criticism. only insults, but your aggressive attitude towards the negative protrayal of the individual even at the expense of objective neutral point of view writing shows your bias. that and the fact that your proudly display your politics on your page hints that you might agressively push your own ideology. even in a foreign country. Bopie (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have never been reverted due to idiological editing. On the contrary, when i caught people editing tendentious and trying to do PUSH POV, they always resorted to the same argument "No, the bias is you!". You are not the first to use this argument, and won't be the last. That only shows you don't understand what this wiki is all about. After all, i'm not the one trying to censor "bad things" in an article of a politician i support. I said what i had to say. You were warned about the disruptive editing. Wrong or right, persisting in this attitude usually ends on automatic block. Like i said, you have been more than warned. Coltsfan (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
If you did see my block log, you saw that the last time i someone blocked me was way back in January 2014. Was over a non political issue (i think was sports or something). So, don't make acusations against fellow editors without knowing what you are talking about. This can be seen as WP:PERSONAL. Another protip for you. Ps: Stop the Ad hominem here. It doesn't help your case at all, might cost you sympathy by other users. Just a protip for ya. Coltsfan (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)