User talk:Paulo Andrade
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.
You might find these pages useful:
You can always experiment in the sandbox.
If you like, you can introduce yourself at the new user log, or write something about yourself on your user page.
One more thing: if you leave a note on any kind of discussion page it's always helpful to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), which is automatically converted to your username and the date and time. Don't do this in articles themselves though as they are not 'owned' by any particular contributor.
If you have any questions, see help, leave a question at the help desk, or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page.
Thanks again and happy editing!
— Trilobite (Talk) 03:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just a note to say we certainly value your contributions here. If your user page is correct, you have much to offer. Please do not take an article's vote for deletion personally (I don't know if you would, but just in case)--it's simply one of the means we use to give and receive feedback about how to go forward. BoomHitch 01:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- My user page is correct. I suppose that the editor decides using non-personal criteria (at least I hope this from a recognized Encyclopedia), and I know that he or she can delete the page if it is considered this way. Paulo Andrade Mar 30, 2005 03:03 GMT.
Login
[edit]Have you posted to Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump on this problem yet? BoomHitch 03:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Not yet. I have only about two months as a Wikipedian. Thank you very much for these tips. I'll take a look ASAP. Paulo Andrade Mar 30, 2005 03:13 GMT
User 200.167.38.94
[edit]This user is me. There is also a discussion page for this user where you can also talk to me, but please centralize all your talk here.
Info retrieved from 200.167.38.94 User Talk so far :
Fake News -
I disagree with your notion that deleting the "fake news" page constitutes censorship. Censorship implies that it is my goal to keep people from seeing this information. If this were true, I would be nominating propaganda, satire and journalistic fraud for deletion as well. I am merely saying that the information in fake news is redundant with those articles. This is not censorship. DaveTheRed 01:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It only constitutes censorship if you twist arguments far enough. That's the way I saw it. I sincerely believe in diversity of angles, multiplicity and complementariness, and it is clear for me that Wikipedia has a pattern of diversity - just see the examples I gave : sea, ocean, water, waterfall, river and lake, for instance, exist together although they have something in common. The same occurs with fun, amusement and entertainment, with Arab and Muslim, and with thousands and thousands of other words. Just check it out. Maybe this is not your case, but someone could be seriosly concerned about an article covering this subject of "fake news", because recent scandals have been brought to surface involving one aspect of fake news (which is governmental use of prepackaged news), and because the expression "fake news" is much more obvious and popular to find something about these scandals than other words like "video news release" or "government payment of columnists". As for propaganda, it is not obvious that something about these type of fake news would be found there. Note also that Wikipedian words commonly gain a place in the first page of Google results and unlike occasional news reports, they are there on a permanent basis - it's an easy library to be researched, and not old news that you put in the garbage.
That's why I say that potential censors with bad intentions may exist. Potential censors may have professional skills of twisting arguments and persuade editors about their points. In logical discussions, it is sometimes very difficult to detect fallacies and other sorts of tricks. Potential censors may hide behind technical purism with bad intentions. And remember, I'm not talking about POVs, or real technical deletions, I'm talking about real censorship in the real world where some bad people fear the truth and desperately struggle for power. Of course this is valid for all parties and schools of thoughts of all countries, especially to the more powerful ones. I'm not pro-Bush or anti-Bush (I'm not even American), I'm just pro-truth and pro-diversity. Now if you excuse me, I need to sleep. Good night. Paulo Andrade 29 Mar 2005, 02:40 GMT.
And of course we can talk again if you wish, DaveTheRed. I'm open to make friends in Wikipedia, and it doesn't matter if sometimes our opinions may collide here or there. If the result of the debate is good to the collectiveness, then it means it was positive. Paulo Andrade 30 Mar 2005, 22:22 GMT.
Hi Paulo. Goodnes gracious, I really don't know know what to make of this article. You put a lot of work into it, I can see, but it seems to contain quite a bit of bias. Statements in the article need to be referenced from neutral, verifiable, notable, respected, and (where appropriate) peer-reviewed sources, for starters. The article needs quite a severe redaction, I'm afraid. Would you like to work with me on this, or am I going to have to go it alone, something I don't especially look forward to. Herostratus 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks to come here. Of course we can work together. I made some changes yesterday, so as to keep the overall neutrality of information. Tell me what is your opinion. Paulo Andrade 21:55, 18 July 2006 (GMT)
- I'll respond on the article's talk page. Herostratus 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Your userpage
[edit]Also, your userpage... It's extensive, nicely formatted, and I can see that you've put a lot of work into it. But its basically a solicitation for users to contribute to a non-WikiMedia project (your book). Noble as your project may be, we can't really allow advertising for outside projects, nor ask our editors to turn their energies to non-WikiMedia projects. Sorry. I guess you're going to have to remove most of that material. Herostratus 05:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed all mentions to my book or to any kind of self-promotion.
Suggestion
[edit]Hi again Paulo. I can see that you've been quite busy. If I may suggest, if you haven't read these you might want to:
- WP:NOT, particularly the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" (and also per the above message "What your user page is not")
- WP:NOR
- WP:VERIFY
- WP:CITE
- WP:NPOV
Don't be discouraged, please! It can take quite a while to get used to all the ways of Wikipedia. When I started I also was not creating the greatest articles in the world, believe me! I'm sure we're both going to be just as busy as bees working on all this, and hopefully become great friends. Herostratus 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: Sexual Morality and the Law
[edit]AdamBiswanger1 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adambiswanger1. I have added my comments on the AfD page. Paulo Andrade 23:25, 24 July 2006 (GMT)
- It's interesting that nobody questions the existence of articles on other Foucault's works... Only this article is nominated for deletion... My impression is that it seems really a sign of censorship, it looks like some people are desperatly seeking any motive to hide a piece of human knowledge from others, to sweep info under the rug as if it was revealing something important that they didn't want other people to know. Paulo Andrade 23:25, 24 July 2006 (GMT)
- I can guarantee you, Adambiswanger1, that if this article is
deleted, I will be personally involved and committed in spreading the news about the existence of this information throughout the Internet. (I am already considering doing it even if the article is not deleted - only because someone suggested it should be deleted is enough reason to do this, once the suggestion to delete it is already totally absurd, IMHO) Paulo Andrade 23:25, 24 July 2006 (GMT)
- You know, I live in a country where a whole generation of intellectuals fighted against censorship during military dictatorship for over 20 years, so I know what it looks like. Paulo Andrade 23:25, 24 July 2006 (GMT)
- To hide relevant information from the public is simply dishonest (no matter if it's right-wing or left-wing) and disqualifies the intentions of those who oppose the content of the text. Paulo Andrade 23:25, 24 July 2006 (GMT)
Yes I don't think this information should be deleted, either. It just makes no sense. AfD is for deleting articles on local pizza shops and made up words, not articles on philosophers. Also it looks like there's something going on with your computer so that your signature is coming up a bunch of times for a single comment. Just write what you want, and then at the end put ~~~~ once. Also, just write Keep once in the AfD so the closing admin doesn't think that you have voted more than once. Well, the good news is I think this article will be saved. Good luck in any future articles you write. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Thank you for you tip. I'll concentrate all my comments in one only signature from now on. I didn't know about any rule for doing it. I separated them because I thought it would become too big (and a little ugly) if joined in one. Paulo Andrade 23:59, 24 July 2006 (GMT)
Footnotes
[edit]Hi Paulo. Just a tip on footnotes, the generally accepted way is shown at WP:FOOT. One great advantage of this is that allows footnotes to be inserted without manually renumbering all the footnotes. It also allows readers to easily go to a footnote and return to their place in the text. Cheers, Herostratus 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ephebiphobia
[edit]I have a question about sources at talk:Ephebiphobia that perhaps you can answer. -Will Beback 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Age of consent articles in general
[edit]Hi Paulo,
I know Matthew Waites's The age of consent is one of very few texts on this subject, but we must be careful to not make it appear that his is the only voice in all our AoC articles. When Waites himself edited Age of consent a while ago he pretty much put a ref to his book into every paragraph. Which made Wikipedia look like an advert to his book. Especially as he'd then added a direct link to his publisher's website. --Monotonehell 09:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Monotonehell. I think you're right. The article(s) should not be too Matthew-Waitesed, or at least not only Matthew Waites, although his book seems to be important and very comprehensive. Other books may be published in the future. Anyway, I have just added new info from other sources to AoC reform. Maybe in the future we can add new info from other sources as well. --Paulo Andrade 07:02, 15 October 2006 (GMT)
- However, of course it would be interesting if Matthew Waites himself could improve the articles with new sources in the future, if he is willing not to promote his book.-- Paulo Andrade 04:23, 04 November 2006 (GMT)
I appreciate your looking up and adding the material on the early sections, nice work. Herostratus 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll try to add new material in the future, if I can find something new and interesting.Paulo Andrade 04:23, 04 November 2006 (GMT)
AfD nomination of Fear of youth
[edit]I have nominated Fear of youth, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear of youth. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Herostratus (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Romances between adults and adolescents
[edit]I have nominated Category:Romances between adults and adolescents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Translated pages as derivative works
[edit]According to this edit summary you added content to Abuse of language by translating fr:Abus de langage. When translating a page from one Wikipedia project to another it is best to use the template {{translated page}} on the associated talk page to indicate so. I have added the template on your behalf. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details.
I have begun a discussion of the page's current content at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Abuse of language. If you are still interested in the page, your comments would be most welcome. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"World Health Organization (WHO)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect World Health Organization (WHO). Since you had some involvement with the World Health Organization (WHO) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Sexual Morality and the Law for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Morality and the Law (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.