Lguipontes

Hello, Lguipontes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Luizdl (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Restart (band), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Restart (band) was changed by Lguipontes (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.967071 on 2010-11-05T05:10:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The emo article

Hey Lguipontes! I just wanted to say that I am impressed with your conduct on the emo page. Even though you many not be seeing it, your arguments do make sense and I am trying to see what your saying from your point of view.

This isn't to be demeaning or anything but there is another english wikipedia project called the simple english wikipedia that you may be interested in. I do some work there and its a marvelous project. I have found that they are less critical about spelling and grammar usage the the this wiki. I am not discouraging you at all from contributing here. We need passionate people who can find information. It just may spark your interest. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing

I only edited there because the article failed to give some key information, like the pred. degree of European ancestry in Brazil according to the genetic studies, the "caboclo" population (it mentioned only "cafuzos" and "mulattoes" as "pardos"), etc. I had not seen "caboclo" was mentioned in your edit, so I changed it by mistake. As for your text, I prefer mine, since your put all of the information in one single phrase, and it sounds somewhat confusing because of it. But if you prefer it to be that way, it is fine by me. The way that article was presented it looked like Brazil was a country just short of Nigeria, which the international media has a taste for depicting us, which is very wrong, not because there is anything wrong about being just short of Nigeria, but because, when it comes to Brazil, it is very far from the truth of our reality, which does not mean we do not have a great and large African contribution (generally appreciated by most Brazilians IMO). Cheers187.36.83.228 (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Brazilian cuisine, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Lamen (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert Edit in Phaseolus vulgaris

With regards to your revert of my edit of Phaseolus vulgaris. Regardless of the quality of the article Brazilian cuisine the sentencePinto beans rank probably second or third as the most commonly eaten beans in Brazil (and first in São Paulo), does not follow general Wikipedia guidelines specifically WP:Weasel, WP:NOR and WP:Cite.

My edit was a minor, simple and relatively helpful addition; asking for someone to do the research and correct the weasel words so that the article followed guidelines.

A solution would be to correct the problems with the sentence, specifically the use of weasel words (in this case probably) and a lack of citation for the statement which makes it read as original research.

An alternative would be to revert the edit to one prior to your addition of a paragraph of apparent original research.

Get back to me with what you would like to do. Mike 12:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Accent (linguistics)

Hello, Lguipontes. You recently added content to Accent (linguistics), which I reverted. In my edit summary I said, "Please cite a reliable source. Edit also conflates 'dialect' and 'accent', includes other confusing aspects."

You have re-added the same content, citing a source. You note in your edit summary, "In SP there are metropolitan (paulistano) vs rural (caipira) DIALECTS." The source you cite also says, "Os dialetos existem em enorme quantidade em nosso país, e não estou falando de sotaques" (emphasis added).

This is precisely what I mean about conflating 'dialect' and 'accent': Your source (and, I assume, you) discusses dialect differences, primarily lexical differences. Yet the article Accent (linguistics) is specifically about accent – that is, pronunciation differences, not lexical or other dialect differences. Do you see what I mean?

I don't doubt the truth of what you added; indeed, I fully expect that Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro dialects are more prestigious that rural ones. I don't agree, though, that what you added is an improvement of the article.

In any case, in line with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your changes should be discussed at Talk:Accent (linguistics), since I have expressed disagreement. I look forward to your contributions there. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese laterals

I still don't get the meaning behindthis. What are you trying to say? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing important, Aeusoes1. I was just saying that I misunderstood you by lack of attention about the differences between [l] and /l/, or [w] and /w/. :) Lguipontes (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about your edit summary. I mean this note

Postvocallic allophone of all other Brazilian dialects' /l/ or [w] (gaúcho) and allophone of all or the vast majority of other Brazilian dialects' /l/ (florianopolitano and fluminense), also used in most words of the said dialects.

This is still unclear for reasons that I think have to do with your proficiency in English. It shouldn't be too much of a problem to fix, but maybe you could direct me to the source that you got this information from so I can get a better understanding. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I never did a language course (naturally, in my mind, things that make sense for me, are actually Engrish, or should it be "Een-gleash"?), and as such except for what we learn in school everything I know is fruit of autodidacticism. I don't feel as en-1 because I comprehend everything perfectly, but I do not write very well (the same is true for Spanish). When I do have doubts, Google would even be called my language-immersion course virtual teacher, but sometimes I forgot to do this or the results are not pretty good.

Hmm, in fluminense and florianopolitano it is just the fact I am a native speaker of one of the two dialects and everything we have in differences from other native Brazilian Portuguese speakers, can be explained as our heavy European Portuguese influence (and all EP /l/ is at least lightly velarized). I have no sources now, but in the early 20th century the standard in BP was not our modern [w]. Our syllable-final /l/ was like that of European Portuguese (or Spanish, depending on the speaker) and that is why stronger Caipira accents still have [ɹ] instead of [w] in this position. So it is not absurdical to propose that we have still some velarization in a few words.

About gaúcho, I do not remember of a source now, but it is a common stereotype that they pronounce syllable-final "over-corrected" l. My mother, which know many people from Rio Grande do Sul and actually visited the state 3 times, said it was really close of a Portuguese l rather than a Spanish one (I imagined they had it by the influence of the neighbouring Hispanic countries, nevertheless they really have a singular linguistic [and probably phonetic] isolation too and things which we outside the South do consider archaic are still present there). I will search for it, but it is hard to do since phonetic understanding of this is rare here. Most people barely know about the existence of a phonetic alphabet. I only put it here because as in Caipira, this is the result of a former standard which weakened and not of a differentiation. Both dialects are weakening now too, but they are still strong in the countryside. Lguipontes (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read

WP:MEDRS about referencing. The ref you added to dengue is not suitable and does not mention dengue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Marking edits as minor

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Liquid consonant, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro

Since you've exhibited a problematic pattern of original research, this edit prompts me to ask if you aren't, again, basing your edit on your own native perceptions. If so, then the edit should be undone, especially since it is positioned to imply that it is sourced information. I know it's tempting to rely on your own native perceptions in regards to language, but in this case, you are not only disagreeing with several sources, but you are doing so on a matter of articulatory phonetics (with which being a native speaker actually works against you) and dialectology (on which being a native speaker grants you no authority over academic studies). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being somewhat impolite then. Problematic pattern of original research? Well, maybe I have reasons to doubt any sources found out there (why the misspell in your former edit on near-open central vowel? It was yours or theirs? Because people with any intermediate knowledge in Portuguese happens to know we don't use k/w/y in our alphabet for everything non-foreign. And because people with any intermediate knowledge in Portuguese would know we don't have a plain, widespread pronounciation of this vowel, because in the perception of the Brazilians [ä ~ ɐ ~ ɜ ~ ə] corresponds to the same vowel and yes, we can pronounce it interchangeably in some dialects or use just some exact quality in others — that's why I undid other edits, because people don't see that this study, if I am right, reflected just one or two accents in a wide dialect which is only one in more than a dozen of Brazilian Portuguese dialects). I know you might think I am just procrastinating instead of doing "what is rule on Wikipedia", but I don't see my native perceptions acting against me, contrariwise, I actually saw what you didn't saw. Yes I know you're an intellectual and I still am a high school student without sources and that is why I don't feel it as unfair.

About your question, yes and no. First, the former transcription in its pure state (go to the other former change I did in the article) even hadn't syllable break. Why? The reason can be explained here: Rio Grande do Sul, what amused me. The source actually can be biased in favor of standard speech (which generally levels itself when some dialectal difference is highly minoritary OR marginalized, as you could see about Portuguese phonology and IPA for Portuguese). Yes, standard Brazilian Portuguese has the pronounciation which was that formerly descripted in Rio de Janeiro article. TV shows are standard speech (mostly [the nationwide famous] Rio de Janeiro accent in Globo, São Paulo accent in SBT, Record and RedeTv!, and balanced in TV Brasil, Futura or cable channels) which pronounces [ˈʁi.u dʒi ʒaˈnejɾu] as any tourist from São Paulo, Minas and the South, or neighbours, former housemaids and random salespeople from Northeastern Brazil, my relatives from Espírito Santo, but I know many accents inside my own dialect and other people native to Rio de Janeiro (especially when talking about people in neighbourhoods with high "Portuguese heritage" instead of migrants from everywhere in Brazil) which includes my family, my middle class friends and everyone from Rio in the TV not correcting his or her "accent", pronounce it as [ˈʁi.u dʒi ʒɐˈnejɾu], problem about this "original research"? I can wait for a carioca doubt the verifiablity of what I am talking about (as you are doing), but not the truth (as again, I said and Luizdl completed in IPA for Portuguese, it depends on the speaker, the accent and the dialect). And yes, if this pronounciation just gets a little closer to the Portuguese one, if our dialect is one in the nation's 2 most influenced by the European variety, if I personally speak the language as a native (and that transcription reflects local pronounce), and if up to date no Brazilian is saying this is bullshit, where is the problem, exactly? Lguipontes (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to think that being a native speaker gives you a priori expertise in Portuguese phonetics and dialectology, which is false. You are basically arguing two things

1. You can tell the difference between [a] and [ɐ]
2. Your casual experience with nearby dialects gives you authority over sources that contradict what you are saying.

I find the first claim unlikely. My understanding of Brazilian Portuguese is that these two vowels are in complementary distribution with each other. Because of the way the human mind works in regards to phonemes, native speakers actually block out the phonetic differences between allophones so that, for example, an untrained native speaker of English may not notice the difference between [eə] and [æ] and therefore hear the vowel of can and the vowel of cat as the same. If you are indeed able to perceive this difference, it comes in spite of your status as a native speaker, not because of it.

The real overreach is the second claim. At this point, you are going against two sources, Mateus & d'Andrade (2000) and Barbosa & Albano (2004), both of which explicitly say that Brazilian Portuguese varieties exhibit less vowel reduction than European ones. I thought you might also be contradicting the Larousse Concise Dictionary, but it doesn't seem to encode for the distinction (something your edit implies).

I don't want to give you the impression that I think native speakers don't provide valuable insights. As you have pointed out, at near-open central vowel you were able to spot issues in regards to spelling and translation that aren't immediately obvious to non-natives. But there are some things that native speakers are just not naturally conscious of or knowledgable in and this includes phonetics and dialectology. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 06:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't laugh at me, but I just did get what you said. How? When something in the internet makes me anxious, I explain to my mother what is occurring and ask for wise advices. In this case she agreed that we pronounce janeiro with closed a, but thought absurd about my theory on banana and bananal and we had many arguments about accents, dialects, educated norm and linguistic prejudice, Vernacular Brazilian Portuguese, etc. After it, I just find it weird that she doesn't differentiate [ä] and [ɐ] when they are in complementary distribution [inside our dialect]. But I certainly can differ, because I am much more interested in English, Spanish, Japanese and European Portuguese (not saying about phonetics since as you can see I am still much of a lay) than the average speaker of my dialect so I am forced to learn it.

About the academic studies, I didn't said nothing about Brazilian Portuguese per se at all. Yes in the standard norm of Brazilian Portuguese which follows the rules of the dialects just some 400 km west, 200 km north and 450 km northeast from where I am, [ä] and [ɐ] are always in complementary distribution. I said it doesn't apply to most speakers of my dialect and nearly all those of my regional accent because even if unsourced but *rationally* in Rio de Janeiro linguistic patterns approaches the European variety (something which is quite obvious for us, explained by history and sociology of the city) yes we do have some (very few in many accents, a handful in most, and a considerable minority in few) sepparations between /ä/ and [ɐ ~ ɜ ~ ə] (which we nevertheless can not note for the reasons you said, but I know it is perceptible to me), following European Portuguese rules. How people do not transcribe this in academic studies? Well, this is not standard, and it is not the way they pronounciate in Brasília, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte or regional-sounding (those outside urban/coastal Southeast) dialects, and many people in Rio de Janeiro itself can be not natives or too much influenced by the standard speech (as happened with some singularities in caipira, gaúcho, mineiro and nordestino). Comprehensive studies about this can be done, but please present to me one that, for example, will compare differences and similarities between the pronounces of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Azores, Lisbon and Algarve. The study in the link on near-open central vowel are based on perceptions in 2 cities in São Paulo megalopolis (Jundiaí and Campinas, correct if I am wrong, the site is not loading here), but I never saw specifical material on marginal pronounciations and clear differences, delimited in each dialect, between EP and BP.

Well, I said it times and times ago... We have phonetically really different dialects, third to half of the city was Portuguese or half-Portuguese along decades of its history, and if you don't get this time, it is because you don't feel any free to believe my dilettantism and search a little when you feel it doubtful, or I confuse you with my bad English and verbosity. Lguipontes (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing your point more clearly, which is a little less objectionable now that you have explained it. Still, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include information (that means you), not those who doubt it. I will undo your edit, though you can feel free to redo it if you find a source that backs you up. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Per this edit, please do not disrupt efforts at finding proper attribution to claims at Wikipedia by removing citation requests. Thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You should search for citation quests. It is extremely easy, even for Anglophones. I heard verde and temporal from people of caipira dialect from 3 states (I'm VERY CERTAIN of what I am saying, it is even frustrating), and a lot of people of neighbouring dialects (sertanejo, paulistano, sulista, mineiro) display similar features. [OR] I said my grandmother which raised me is from rural Espírito Santo, ~30% of what they say in Brazilian TV is from São Paulo and some of my best friends are also from there? [/OR] I can find a dozen sources for everything I said to you, but I would have to explain meticulously since you are relentless (please, I'm not being rude, just saying my perceptions), even because you are not Portuguese-speaker and only believe academics (this makes everything harder). I even find videos of Leonel Brizola speaking with a clear non-semivowel pronounciation of syllable-final L several times because he's from Rio Grande do Sul, just for proving that I am not wrong, but I was very afraid of showing this and being ridiculous for supposedly trying to make a source out of this. But this is absurdical true for everyone studying Brazilian Portuguese, too much for being quiet. Lguipontes (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it may be frustrating, but the information in question is not being removed. I think this gives you a fair chance to provide attribution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. In much less than half a week something useful must be here. I just can not give you certainty on 1 - English language (I like giving sources everyone will understand... I imagine that this is part of the purpose BTW. Online translators don't go well with Portuguese texts — though sufficiently precise on single words —, I am experienced with them) and 2 - academic studies. Nevertheless, since this is a widespread phenomena, must be easier to find this kind of information. Sorry for my stress, thanks. Lguipontes (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives in IPA

I noticed your recent edit to Fordlândia put two vowels in parentheses. While this is a common convention elsewhere, we generally avoid it in WP's IPA transcriptions—despite how particularly useful it would be for that epenthetic first vowel. If the usual pronunciation includes a sound, include it; if not, don't; and if the variation is somehow notable/significant, consider just transcribing it both ways. In this case, I will leave it to you to decide which applies, since you're the Portuguese-speaker!

We should probably work out at WP:IPA for Portuguese how to handle epenthetic vowels and coalescence of /tj/ --> /tʃj/, since they are so prevalent in Brazil. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The epenthetic /i/ is standard, we put it everywhere, specially if one is not an English/French/Italian/German speaker and is only used to colloquial speech. Well, I bet you already know that even if it is much less than French and Arabic, Brazilian Portuguese differs very much in written and spoken language (diglossia). While the supposedly educated speech respects more the rules of written language, people speaking Portuguese in their everyday lives do use a colloquial form which is a little more different in respect to both grammar and pronunciation.

As British English and hundreds or thousands of other languages, BP has complications with sociolects and dialects (and the Brazilian equivalent of Received Pronunciation is not equivalent to any particular dialect, unlike Portugal's Coimbra, although it resembles very much kind of middle and upper class fluminense – in the first half of the 20th century, the standard form of the language was defined as how it is pronounced in Rio de Janeiro city –, but respecting more the rules of written language). Some dialects possess more European Portuguese influence, others are said to be a result of decreolization, etc.

As such, certain pronunciations (such as the glide after /tʃ/ and /dʒ/) should be there, but they are generally not. The glided vowel can even change a phoneme; I also recently changed Brasília, because in BP /lj/ immediately becames /ʎ/. I said in IPA for Portuguese, months or years ago, that /ni/ and /li/ in BP turns into /ɲ/ and /ʎ/... Actually I was trying to say that it was /nʲi/ and /lʲi/ (although I am no authority on linguistics, no one can really tell the difference between Alice, linha, "line", galinha, "chicken", and galhinho, a "little twig" – the 'nh' phoneme is different because most people pronounce it as a nasal palatal glide, but /ni/ has no difference from the Japanese equivalent and bilingual Portuguese-Spanish speakers will probably understand what I mean). I am not the first with this perception here in Wikipedia.

If this is true, then it is lacking studies, because this imagined palatalization is really common. I don't like to guess things in which I have superficial understanding, but the palatalization would be turning the affricates into alveolo-palatal consonants, as the ones in Japanese. Then Fordlândia's IPA transcription would be [fɔʁdʒiˈlɐ̃dʑɐ] or [fɔʁdʑiˈlɐ̃dʑɐ] in narrow transcription, but I think it is better to transcribe it just with the usual affricates /tʃ/ and /dʒ/. The polemics would be too huge if I made this unsourced claim just because of these supposed unusual allophones of another allophones. Lguipontes (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice you've added several pronunciations indicating an epenthetic [i] with a superscript ‹ⁱ›. We generally try to stick to the relevant IPA transcription guide (in this case WP:IPA for Portuguese) in non-linguistics-related articles, so that the reader has a resource to find out what the symbols mean. If that guide is insufficient, you should propose changes at its talkpage. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. No one said anything about it, did I something wrong? Lguipontes (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Close front unrounded vowel

Per this edit summary, I feel like I need to elaborate from my edit summary the problems of the information you've included at Close front unrounded vowel.

• The first is that it is worded unclearly. It seems like it is saying that European Portuguese doesn't have the phoneme /i/, which would be false. A closer reading gives the meaning that [ɨ] is an unstressed allophone of /i/ or even that [e] is an unstressed allophone of /i/. Also false. The most generous interpretation would be that it is an oversimplistic description of vowel reduction in Portuguese where unstressed /e/ becomes [ɨ] in Portuguese but remains [e] in Brazilian...unless it's in a syllable after the stress.
• Another problem is that it is a long, drawn out description. I've edited the article so that there's still mention of vowel allophony, which I think was your intention. Remember, things in the notes section should be brief.
• Finally, the mention of Centro-Sul is original research. I don't want to rehash this issue with you, because you know my stance on original research and I know the position that you're put in as a native speaker. But the more you include these unsupported claims, the less confident I feel about giving you the benefit of the doubt when I think that you might have a source. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, is it good? "Allophone of /ɨ/ outside Europe. Some unstressed /i/ may be pronounced as /e/ and [ɪ] in certain varieties". I've never heard of Brazilians pronouncing European /i/ as /ɛ/. This is not a feature of conservative Northern and Northeastern varities. There menino is mininu, Beberibe is Bibéribi (in Europe it'd be Böbéribi), and my name is "[giˈlɛhmi]" instead of "[giˈjɛɹmɪ]" (I pronounce it as /giˈʎɛʁmi/, which we already know to be probably /gɯˈʎɛɾmi/ in Portugal).

• Certain varieties mean the standard ones?! Standard Brazilian Portuguese is the fluminense dialect, since it is dominant in both the former and the contemporary capitals (at least the prestige variety of Brasília seems to be in this group, but I don't have many friends from there or that lived there for long time unlike for São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul, so this is more of a guess by media from there – e.g. rock bands). As such, how menininho for many Brazilian speakers would be pronounced /meniniɲʊ/ is not something to include there... http://www.diariodorio.com/sotaque-carioca-o-oficial/ http://books.google.com.br/books?id=TFzWAq-S7I0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Happily, as my native dialect is the standard (as opposed to my mother, I don't have a much typical carioca accent... which is not far more syllable-timed than my fast apathetic toneless combination of standardized fluminense, Portuguese Brazilian niteroiense and Southern capixaba), it would be easier for both of us to know.

Oh, and I just found an amazing source for what I said that "broad" and some "general" Brazilian Portuguese does put an epenthetic /i/ before nhoque! Page 169 of the book of the link (almost in the end of the copy). It is not characteristic of the prestige varieties of Southeastern Brazil, as everyone knows it is an Italian word wh*ere this consonant is possible as word-initial. I didn't knew about "ilhama" though, since in Jimmy Neutron, which is dubbed by learned cariocas as me, it is just "lhama".

• Innovations of pronouncing unstressed ⟨e⟩ and ⟨o⟩ as [e ~ ɪ] and [o ~ ʊ] instead of usual /i/ and /u/ are not the usual pattern. In this respect, it is largely known that Northern and Northeastern varities of Brazilian Portuguese are phonetically conservative, and that due to a more recent wave of European immigration some coastal varities of Brazilian Portuguese in Centro-Sul tend greatly to European Portuguese in some aspects, so you do not need to worry if I am writing invented things (I am not). It is ok for me to not including this information there. I was just saying that these changes were restricted to some especially phonetically innovative regions of Brazil, though they are not standard.

• I know I may be confusing sometimes, actually my texts are messy even in Portuguese. I'm trying to make it better. I was always the best student in spelling, grammar, coherence and cohesiveness in all grades, but also always had major difficulties in summarizing texts or ideas. Hope it helped our mutual understanding. You're nice, and the only person with whom I make usual direct contact here, so I swear I try to make my best. Cheers. Lguipontes (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Suspicion of an open proxy by a bot, second time it is happening

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lguipontes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

ProcseeBot blocked 187.122.***.*** until 9 August because it believes to be the case of an open proxy. It is the second time it happens with me. I connect from home, and my Internet service provider is not and had never been pirate. Maybe it is common due to the rising interest of people in my region to Tor and Deep Web in general? Already answered question, yeah, it is because of that. Lguipontes (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked. This IP address seems to be no longer running an open proxy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lguipontes, you will need to provide us with the full IP address that is blocked if we are to investigate your request. If you do not wish to provide it publicly, you may submit your unblock request via WP:UTRS, where it will only be seen by a few trusted users. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• An IP address in the range you refer to certainly was running an open proxy, but I can find no evidence that it still is, so I will refer it to the WikiProject on open proxies to be checked. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, guys. Please comment here the sooner you can, so, JamesBWatson. I did the unblock request at WP:UTRS, DoRD, saying my real IP and other informations there. Lguipontes (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Message received and understood. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies is rather busy now, with several requests for checks pending, so I have no idea how long the wait will be, but I hope not too long. My own check suggested that this is no longer an open proxy, but I would prefer to have a further check by someone who knows more about proxies than I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am sorry that this is taking so long. It looks as though the IP address is probably not an open proxy, but the person who did the proxy check suggests a further check before deciding on an unblock. I am currently trying to get help with that further check. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize at all. Just for the sake of persistence and curiosity, I clicked on editing a page now, and it worked, no message of block! I tried at my mom's PC (I am not logged in Wikipedia there), from where I go online when my notebook faces problems, entered a random talk page and typed ~~~~, and it appeared as the same IP of the block in the preview. Seems that I am unblocked now, yay! Thank you very much, and to the other people who helped me! :) Lguipontes (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Pardos" and "whites" in Minas Gerais

That map is wrong because according to the latest census "pardos" were not in higher number than "whites". A greater number of people declared themselves to be "white" in Minas Gerais than "pardos".Grenzer22 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember some other map, I'll add it. But what you and the IPs had not noticed is that I ignored Portuguese legend and added a more accurate English one. The other map will tell the Brazilian states of branco-majority and relative minority (when as most frequently marked racial group), but I would rather keep both of them. Lguipontes (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is so useful

http://westonruter.github.com/ipa-chart/keyboard/ zOMG it will ease my life in hours per week forever, thank you internets Lguipontes (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Language

Hi,Lguipontes. I noticed that you've made several edits to Portuguese language, with a significant amount of new content. Could you please add references to this new content? Thank you, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I provided actual sources where I felt it to be needed. About the new phonemes, it is not needed. Editions from before of my last one entered in detail only about European Portuguese phonology, what was kind of weird since the language is pluricentric. The sources used in all Wikipedia pages about Portuguese language confirm, or at least do not enter in sufficient detail to cover all dialects with precision (e.g. carioca postalveolars being those of Catalan and Japanese, not the ones found in English or French, and both the Brazilian and the Portuguese recognize our alveolo-palatal pronunciation, deemed obnoxious by many, as the chiado, put it on Google and you'll find tons of results, apart from the fact that our 'nh' and 'lh' are alveolo-palatals too, so I obviously know where one has to put its tongue to imitate how this sound is produced here, as well one should bear in mind that the most trusteeable research about Brazilian Portuguese phonology here is from 2004 and it was specific to the pronunciation of São Paulo), everything that I've added, such as the near-close vowels.

Even the Barbosa & Albano work on the Portuguese of São Paulo also document an enormous variety of the pronunciation of the rhotic phoneme /ʁ/ just on the dialects that were included on their research, so that while we sit and wait more phonologists do detailed works on Brazilian Portuguese such as the ones we have on American English, Catalan and Japanese, just as examples, I think Wikipedia can trust on what we have by now (and I don't want to be rude, but I'd expect a fellow native speaker to call my attention on sections without factual accuracy – that I don't expect to have started to exist in my former five edits). I'll search for information saying where it is said that carioca is kind of standard in Brazil, though, specially if it is disputed by many fellow Brazilians and dear neighbours that despite their non-fricative coda rhotic, guarantee that their dialect is the standard in Brazil and that "they don't have accent" [sic]. Lguipontes (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Groisman

"Groisman" é pronunciado com um o fechado. Veja: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ilustrad/fq0212200404.htm . Por favor, reverta a mudança que fez na vogal da transcrição. -- Marawe (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Não no Rio de Janeiro. Como o nosso dialeto, chiado e velarização do ele à parte, é o neutro i.e. meio-termo entre o sul e o norte, ou se transcreve aquele 'o' com uma vogal média, ou se transcreve o mesmo com uma open-mid – DE FORMA ALGUMA com uma fechada, já que essa tendência de fechar vogais abertas átonas do povo mais ao sul e ao oeste é considerado substandard aqui. Lguipontes (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I am a cleaner. I reverted you because of the following reasons:

1. IPA transcriptions MUST be identical to IPA guides. (WP:PRON)
2. If you desire to add languages to sounds, you MUST cite a source. Without a source, new information can perfectly be deleted (WP:DEL)

Don't talk all this savvy with me, dude. You picked whatever guidelines filled your reasons the best, but it is not the way we deal with policy. You should know that Wikipedia has other important policies such as consensus (people that deal with phonetics more often than you didn't single me out over my past editions for a considerable ammount of time, and they are indeed rigorous – also, I often have my way to deal with the problems that they find of my behavior, I don't need people perfectly useful for other areas of Wikipedia treating me like a boss, even more considering that they are novices), WP:EDITWAR (you didn't asked me a reason for starting to do things out of you own, apart of your bad IPA skills and your complete ignoring of my edit summaries), that IPA guide for Brazilian Portuguese has the weirder vowels I recently put, and that IPA transcriptions that reflect things pertaning to events, peoples or cultural items relative to a region with a certain very particular dialect are possible.

AFTER ALL, NEAR-CLOSE VOWELS IN SÃO PAULO AND THE SOUTH ARE DOCUMENTED BY ACADEMIA. (ALL CAPS FOR THE WIN, THIS IS MY TALK PAGE LULZ!) Lguipontes (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

E eu recomendo a você não fazer uma edit war comigo caso o Aeusoes1 te dê razão. Caso você destrua o equilíbrio entre ele, eu, a linguística e a Wikipédia em inglês que é a coisa que eu mais me preocupo aqui (à parte de tentativas de edições bold master minhas que sempre acabam sabotadas pelo meu computador muito ruim e a baixa tolerância do mesmo e do Firefox ao meu uso de Flash, rede social e Wikipédia ao mesmo – edições das quais eu talvez teria tirado algum respeito, incluso em outras áreas da Wikipédia) como aparentemente já fez, eu entro nisso até o fim. Lguipontes (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You MUST discuss before changing editing conventions. Please, stop. Reiniger321 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WAT? The person tht started making crazy edits out of consensus and dialogue here was YOU. Dude, Wikipedia's policies aren't equivalent to rules. It is clearly said that one can ignore it if it for the general development of the project, and sincerely, Brazilian Portuguese phonology is too complex to flood Help:IPA for Portuguese with all that information. It is also not necessary per previous consensus. Stop playing hard to get and using policies to justify your blatant tendency to edit war things that you don't like. Lguipontes (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been away from the computer for a little while, so I apologize about not getting back to you sooner. My removal was triggered by Reiniger321 's challenge to some of the content that you put. I've been lax about challenging the content myself, even though I believe it to be original research. However, with another editor being proactive in challenging what you have added to these sound articles regarding Portuguese (even if Reiniger's reasoning is flawed), I do feel compelled to er on the side of citability. WP:NOR has some fudgeability, but there's nothing about the spirit of that policy (nor of verifiability, not truth), that would justify restoring removed original research.

I've restored the deleted tags and added a few more. I'm not going to give you a whole lot of time to find sources. If the content is removed again (either by myself or someone else), it should stay removed until you find a source.

By the way, just to be more explicit, Reiniger's claim that the transcriptions in these articles has to conform to some sort of transcription convention is false. The IPA for X conventions are for transcriptions in articles and often gloss over certain phonetic details and usually refer to more standardized forms. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the way the citation tags distort the column width, so this is a nice move. I'll be doing that from now on, I think. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]}

September 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Reconquista. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Obrigado Cara

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for cleansing Sport Club Corinthians Paulista of an inordinate amount of vandalism... I can't thank you enough, since the Palmeiras match a couple weeks ago, its been getting ridiculous. 1dayFloripa (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yay, my first barnstar! Thank you! ^^

I agree with you, that page should get protected, I wish it this way since long time ago but didn't include it to my watchlist so I forgot to ask for it. I will follow the outcome of your request. :) Lguipontes (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lguipontes for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Transcriptions are too narrow

Why the intentional confusion between broad transcriptions and narrow transcriptions? Contributors follow the community consensus. 189.120.109.178 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The anon is right, here. Just looking at the articles you've edited today, I can see that your addition of diacritics and of certain characters is not only unnecessarily narrow, but the transcription conventions differ from those at the help pages (Help:IPA for Spanish, Help:IPA for Portuguese and Galician), which will be confusing to readers trying to figure out the transcriptions. If you think that these conventions should change, you should bring it up at the talk pages of the languages in question rather than try to impose these unconventional transcriptions one article at a time.

I'll be taking a closer look at the articles you and Reiniger321 have been disputing about and trying to edit them according to the guidelines. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Anon and Reiniger321 may be right about Spanish – the reason I waited some more experienced editor(s) ruling if their changes had a point, and since I interpreted silence as consent and my edits were older, I meant it wrong on their part (though not inadmissible, the problem is that he/them make changes without trying to discuss and make a point before) –, but certainly not about Brazilian Portuguese.

The use of mid and near-close vowels is documented, and actually useful because the persons that don't use them don't agree over raising them, or lowering them because of regional variation (mine tends to be mantain or lower mids when it does not interpreted pre-stress [e̞] and [o̞] as [i] and [u] as in Europe in many words such as comadre itself which I NEVER, ever heard with an /o/, and raise near-close ones, and it sounds close to weird in more southerly variants). I added the mids in IPA for Portuguese and Galician, but was quite lazy to do so with the [u ~ ʊ] and [i ~ ɪ] variation, not very significant in final position, but more important for representing dialect variation in pre-stressed position. I am just trying to present a neutral Portuguese transcription. Lguipontes (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I tend to transcript final close vowels in final position as semivowels when the next word start as a vowel because that is the only way they are pronounced. The IP thought it was inappropriate. I don't get a clue on how using [w] and [j] in this environment is a narrow transcription so seriously problematic – this will actually help English speakers as they tend to not have a knowledge on Portuguese phonotactics – and of these, only [w] forms minimal pairs with [u] (or [ʊ] and/or [o], in some dialects), after /k/ and /g/, so that they are almost entirely just allophones of the vowels. Lguipontes (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bring it up at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician. You might not get much support for the additional diacritics, but I can get behind your treatment of semivowels (it's very similar to how we treat certain vowel combinations in Spanish). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I will do it now. Thanks. Lguipontes (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning

Hello Lguipontes. I see that you have been reverting Reiniger321's edits to Spanish and Portuguese IPA text again yesterday, on these articles: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. This behaviour constitutes edit warring, and is not acceptable, even if you believe you are right. What you need to do now is to talk with Reiniger321 and try and find a consensus on how to deal with the IPA symbols that you are disagreeing on. I saw that you started a discussion at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician#Brazilian Portuguese unstressed vowels about this issue, and I thank you for that. It is definitely a good start towards getting a dialogue going. However, that page isn't watched very much, so you may not get an answer soon, if at all. I recommend starting a new thread about this at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and notifying the editors at WikiProject Linguistics.

Although you started the discussion at the Portuguese IPA talk page, that does not excuse the edit warring yesterday. Please consider this a formal warning - if you revert Reiniger321's edits to IPA text in articles again without attempting any discussion, then I will block you from editing for a period of time at my discretion, in order to prevent further edit warring. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I have a question about other topic, my sockpuppetry investigation. Was the case settled with my words? No comments followed after that. Can I still be punished for using the IP in that manner, which has evidence to be not deceptive?

Second, well, I can just sit and wait for what will happen, because today Aeusoes1 agreed with the non-Lguipontes' preferred transcriptions in a number of articles and I tended to agree with the wide majority of them. Generally, the person who first starts the edit war is Reiniger321, and I always wait some hours until reverting him back if no admin gives a look into what happened and comments. About starting a discussion with him... Well, he is barely online for a sufficient time to revert me in the number of articles he would like to, and then he appears to go offline for at least about a day. He is also pretty anti-social with me, and I don't drive this conclusion from nothing. If the dispute actually starts back again, I thought of bringing it up to AN/I. Why do you believe that the dispute resolution thread is better and not more complex? It is not a single article, but a continuing pattern of user behavior (I must admit, on both sides). Lguipontes (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I recommend the dispute resolution noticeboard over ANI is there doesn't seem to be one definitely right way to transcribe Portuguese/Spanish IPA and one definitely wrong way; or at least, the issue is specialised enough that it is not obvious to most editors which way is right and which way is wrong. If I have been following things correctly, this is mostly about determining which dialect of Portuguese or Spanish should be used when transcribing, and not about correcting outright falsehoods. (Please tell me if I'm missing anything here.)

As this is a dispute with no clear right or wrong, the most important thing we need to get sorted out is which way we should be doing things. Whether we can classify this as a conduct dispute or a content dispute depends on whether there is a consensus to do things a particular way. If there is no consensus to do things in any one way, then your disagreement with Reiniger321 is a content dispute, and that can't be dealt with by blocks or sanctions. If there is a consensus on the right way to do IPA in these kinds of situations, then the dispute comes into the realm of conduct disputes; any editors who persistently go against the consensus can be blocked for disruptive editing, after being suitably warned. So it is important that we get agreement on what to do about the content before we start talking about any blocks. No matter what the dispute is classed as, though, if editors edit war then they can be blocked for that.

About the sockpuppetry case, I can't speak for other admins, but I don't think there need to be any sanctions imposed for that as long as you use your account from now on. Now that we know you logged out to edit, the important questions are a) whether you did this to escape scrutiny, and b) if it seems likely you might do so again in the future. I'm going to assume good faith about a), and I think b) isn't likely because of your responses. So I don't think you have anything to worry about there.

One last thing - in your reply above did you mean that both you and Reiniger321 have agreed with Aeusoes1's suggestions on how to transcribe the IPA for Portuguese and Spanish? If you have both agreed with him, then there might not be a need for dispute resolution. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand... I took a hard time learning some parts of the IPA and don't expect that it is simpler now. But the vowels are quite easy... This is perhaps more of an issue of native language, I know what I am talking about because I am experienced with Brazilian Portuguese.

I agreed with other people in Spanish, diacritics there aren't necessary at all, but not in Portuguese, and I explained why my transcriptions are so narrow (i.e. with use of less common characters, instead of just a set of the most obvious phonemes, called broad transcription) in Help Talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician.

I will try to explain. Broad transcription with the present characters don't help because of the lack of consistency in raising unstressed vowels in Brazilian Portuguese (some dialects make them become really close as in Portugal, or like the English u/oo but even more "darker", others more open than those of Spanish, like the English vowel in "raw"), and the fact that every dialect is standard in its own because untressed vowel variation is regarded as plain influence of regional variation – a Northeasterner is not asked to stop pronouncing sotaque, or accent, as saw-tah-kee (lowered /o/, now [ɔ]), while a carioca is also not asked to stop pronouncing it soo-tah-kee (raised /o/, now [u]), if they are supposed to have a carreer in media, even if it is in São Paulo, where most people have it as soh-tah-ky. (Further, people in the regions where they raise to an [o] or [e] may also raise it to [ʊ] and [ɪ], respectively. I used those characters representing near-close vowels to indicate a point where there is variation between close/near-close and close-mid/mid/open-mid vowels.)

Nevertheless, the dominant trait in Brazil is to preserve it as a mid vowel or lower to an [ɔ] (my articulation, for example, is always mid or "near-mid" when I don't raise it to [u]), and the pattern preferred by Reiniger321, former consensus before I started to do a lot of transcriptions using more exotic IPA characters (so that now Aeusoes1 reverted my edits), is to use a non-representative [o], that is minoritarian and has never been standard (even in spite of most people west and south from here using it this way, my dialect is/was the preferred in part because it doesn't raise mids to such an uncommon point).

I actually don't wish it to be tendencious to any particular dialect. I am trying to make a broad transcription. Lguipontes (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to explain it to me. I get the general gist of what you are saying, but I'm afraid that the specifics are a bit beyond me, so I think we need to get other editors involved in the conversation. I see that Aeusoes1 has replied at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician#Brazilian Portuguese unstressed vowels, so let's continue the conversation there and see if we can get a consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you've replied over at the help page, so thanks for that. Sorry to be nit-picky, but I have one more request - could you try and make your posts shorter? If you write very long posts, it might put people off reading them. Keeping things brief will help to get the discussion commented on by as many people as possible, and will speed up the process of finding a consensus on this issue. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I swear I already try, but sometimes I start to be wordy... Especially in content disputes, I learnt to write English quite recently and I have a lot of trouble in summarizing ideas, so when I become nervous because I feel pressurized, I tend to be really verbose. Not that I don't imagine what kind of negative feedback it has, I just unconsciously start to use too much for my answers and motives. Lguipontes (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had an idea, there are place in Wikipedia in which verbosity is more tolerated. Furthermore, I was addressing a single person. Lguipontes (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup‎

It's just bad writing.

• "bird many times identified with Brazil" Prove it!
• "biggest feline of the American continent, surpassing the cougar or puma" is not better than "one of the biggest felines of the American continent alongside puma". It's certainly not neutral.

So may I suggest you stop being married to your crappy editing and work cooperatively toward a better encyclopedia. Also, I'm not censoring "everything" you type. I removed some links which were against a common guideline, WP:OVERLINK once. I think that you should stop with the hyperbole.

I'm approaching you on your talk page rather than call you out on the article's talk page. I would appreciate that you fix that section and start acting cooperatively. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I am late, my telenovela is good. I was going to write a comment on your talkpage for courtesy, but since you stepped forward, I write it here.

"I know that really many valued, experienced and skilled editors may deal with too many Randies so as they start to ignore considerate ways to deal with newbies, so I understand your little attempt to understand my side, but this has come to something I can find either hilarious (imagining the reasons for you to have problem with such minor edits) or kinda sad.

But let's come with the facts. If one sees it and then compares to this, it is obvious that they see no major POV-pushing as well it was an obvious improvement."

While it is true that the fact that the macaw being often associated with Brazil is ORIGINAL RESEARCH rather than POV, it is scientifical and common sense that the jaguar is bigger than the puma – I see them on zoos since my early years, my forefathers knew them by lurking into the forest – and any sloppy research can back up this. I can remove the part about the macaw, but if you are going to complain about the jaguar, well, I can tag with a citation needed and get up a source the sooner possible. Regards. Lguipontes (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're not a newbie, you're just not fluent in English and the poor grammar is the most difficult to work with. Since you didn't go back and fix the edit, I did. It was unnecessarily verbose. The original was more succinct and no meaning was lost in the earlier version.

No one accused you of having a POV, just of adding unreferenced material with poor grammar. And neither you, nor your forefathers are reliable sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing further. Please don't exaggerate. Writing "Stop censoring everything I type" was not even remotely true. Some editors would consider reporting such as a personal attack, but I took into account that you are a new editor who may not have English as your first language (and quite frankly I am impressed that you can even operate in a language that isn't your first one) so I simply commented on it above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My English isn't really that bad, yesterday I was very, very sleepy (I slept about 14 hours today after going to bed at 9 am) and was doing another thing while commenting here, and under influence (of sleepiness, as I take no drugs, including coffee with rare exceptions) I can't easily find absurds in this language; if you ever studied Spanish, you will see that the earlier and the West Iberian languages are very similar, actually English is indeed simpler and we generally have more knowledge of what you write than the reverse for you over us after the same time of learning, from people of similar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds.

Surely meaning was lost with your edit. Dude, the reason I wrote about the puma is that THERE ARE TWO ANIMALS CALLED ONÇA, AND IT IS A LIKELY REASON OF CONFUSION. The "spotted" bigger one is onça-pintada, and the uniformly colored smaller one is the onça-parda, much less commonly referred to as suçuarana and puma. Now the text is saying that the jaguar may also be called onça-parda or suçuarana (these are our native names for the puma), just because you were hasty and didn't want to listen my recomendations (I promised to tag with a citation needed, and then find sources). While I likely was a little mean to you, there is a hint of truth in my first impression. Please be more considerate to others, specially with persons you just met. Lguipontes (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oliveira de Azeméis

Ora viva. Realmente parece que coloquei o ficheiro no sítio errado (Nem vi o segundo IPA). Pode então considerar-se que o ficheiro está errado para "oliˈvɐjɾɐ ðɨ ɐzɨˈmɐjʃ"?

Agradecia que me explicasse o significado das suas palavras "(Mas isso em 'de' não é o schwe lusitano, meeeesmo! E a pronúncia no ficheiro é a europeia bonita, sem a batata quente alfacinha no lugar do 'êi' e do 'éi'.)" que utilizou nesta edição. Mais concretamente as expressões "schwe lusitano" e "a batata quente alfacinha no lugar do 'êi' e do 'éi'."

Atentamente, FilipeFalcão (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Fui eu que pus o segundo IPA para que a pronúncia batesse com a transcrição. ^^

Ver a schwa. Vocês fazem redução do /e/ átono, na maioria das ocasiões, para um [ɯ] assentado na posição do [ʊ] (isto é, um u não-arredondado que "desceu"), redução meio-centralizadora esta que eu apelido (alcunho) de schwe, enquanto nós brasileiros no lugar onde vai o [ɨ] (que na realidade é um pouquinho mais velar e "descido" do que a vogal que o símbolo indica) variamos entre [e], [ɛ] e um meio-termo entre eles, antes da sílaba tônica, e [i] ou [ɪ] após a mesma (raramente [e] no Sul, vejo como coisa de quem fala portunhol ou italiano), enquanto nós fluminenses (RJ), capixabas (ES), "cariocas do brejo" (MG, sudeste do estado) e provavelmente florianopolitanos (SC, capital) também subimos o /e/ em posição pré-tônica para [i], que é coloquialismo no resto do Brasil, porém sotaque (acento) aqui (também fazemos isso, com os portugueses, com o ó para o u, daí brincarem que "não temos e sim sutaqui"), daí lusitano (pois não temos essa vogal). Ela pode ser pronunciada também como [i] num hiato em Portugal, e esse era o caso do seu ficheiro.

A batata quente a que me refiro é o [ə], vogal usada por nós brasileiros em poucas palavras (ver Comparison of Spanish and Portuguese#Unstressed vowels), que no caso do português europeu central (sendo, desculpe a sinceridade caso isso te ofenda, para meu desgosto cada vez mais comum ao resto de Portugal e até alguns africanos) trata-se de uma tendência, originalmente lisboeta (ou alfacinha – apelido nem de longe tão gozado quanto o que nós niteroienses temos entre os cariocas, o potencialmente pejorativo papa-goiaba, termo usado para se referir aos fluminenses que vêm do interior), de descer o [ẽj] para [ɐ̃j], e os [ej] e [ɛj] para [ɐj], conhecido pelos brasileiros como o "ai" na palavra baixaria do nosso carioquês, que é ainda mais "subido" (menos aberto) quando falado rápido e baixo. Santa madre, isso me soa até pior que os hispanos e franceses pronunciarem meu nome com ieísmo! Daí eu usar uma linguagem pouco neutra e também apelidar (alcunhar) este. Lguipontes (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agradeço as explicações.

Acabei por voltar a editar o artigo pois como a sua edição tinha um "|" a mais e não se acedia ao ficheiro.

As questões fonéticas é algo que me interessa, como radialista. Quando coloquei os nomes dos concelhos na Commons tinha a noção que não iria acertar em tudo!!! 8) Pode também conferir em pt:Anexo:Lista de concelhos por NUTS, com uma cópia da fonética da en:wp.

Apesar de ter começado com alguns cuidados para expressar os sons correctamente (como nos primeiros que aparecem alfabeto) mas não saiam naturalmente e optei finalmente por colocar os nomens que por norma são utilizados, sem "acentos" (acho) e de uma forma relativamente rápida e coloquial (daí os schwas, que até podem ser apenas meus!!!).

De facto a questão dos /e/ é algo que me persegue há uns anos: Por exemplo, tendo crescido no nordeste transmontano dizia "tenho", "venho" ou "desenho" com um [e] e quando fui para Viseu (dizem que muito afectada foneticamente por Coimbra que influenciaria até Lisboa) troçavam porque deveria dizer com [ɐ], havendo até quem jurasse que "desenho" se escrevia "desanho". Ganhei uma pizza com essa!!! 8)

Atentamente, FilipeFalcão (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Você é da mesma opinião que a minha! Depois dessa você deveria ganhar uma lasanha (caso goste), que para muitos portugueses quase rima com desenho. rsrsrsrs ^^

O português europeu está se tornando mais difícil para estrangeiros aprenderem com essas tendências, em minha opinião. Acho a distinção de ch e x, de s/ss e ç, ou de -s- e z, de muitas pessoas da sua região adorável (embora minha mãe e minha avó, que conviveram com muitos imigrantes portugueses, não entendessem patavinas/necas de pitibiriba/nadinha do sotaque trasmontano, era considerado um dos mais difíceis junto com o açoriano, eu acho xD), mas essa batata quente no lugar das letras es que virou moda em Portugal não me desce bem!

Podes ver que aqui no Brasil, somos do tipo "fale de qualquer jeito que quanto mais fácil e compreensível melhor", daí entre os poucos pontos "inovadores" de nossa variante muito mais foneticamente conservadora estejam os que generalizem o rr para qualquer som gutural junto com a vibrante original como a do espanhol (mais uma vez associada apenas ao Sul do Brasil e aos italianos por aqui), os que vocalizem os eles em fim de sílaba para /w/, embora o povo mais europeu ou que fale portunhol do Sul mais uma vez seja um excessão, onde a pronúncia é a mesma de Portugal (enquanto algumas poucas pessoas bem caipiras têm roticismo nessa posição), os que generalizem o erre em fim de sílaba para qualquer coisa que remotamente soe feito um erre e não tenha propósito pra mais nenhuma letra (xDDDDD), os que palatalizem o ti e o di, MUITO bem palatalizado aqui no Rio de Janeiro, como em japonês, ainda que no Paraná a maioria das pessoas ainda fale leiTE quenTE (talvez o que para mim seja natural seja mais difícil para eles, não sei).

Mais uma coisa... É expectado que eu faça as transcrições do IPA fiéis ao seu acento (que eu acho muito bom) ou ao que é considerado padrão? Lguipontes (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agradeço, desde já, o elogio ao meu "acento" (que nunca foi muito transmontano porque a minha família viveu em Angola, e vivia na cidade... mas claro que há coisas que sempre se vão "colando"). Tem razão que é um pouco complicado, especialmente nas zonas rurais porque também junta tiques do mirandês (e do castelhano) e são usuais palavras "particulares" como "bô" (expressão de admiração) ou "manhuço" (medida que corresponde a uma mão cheia).

Quanto às transcrições do IPA creio que se pisa em terreno novo e não sei se aqui há uma política oficial. Respondendo concretamente à sua questão, pessoalmente acho que deve ser mantido o "que é considerado padrão", considerando que a minha contribuição (os sons) são uma tentativa aproximado e que pode ser utilizado como um exemplo até haver melhor. Se necessário for essa nota pode ser colocada nos ficheiros, por exemplo com o oficial e com o meu "acento"... Mas acho que este é um assunto que deveria ser discutido pela comunidade.

Atentamente, FilipeFalcão (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Brazil with Michael palin

The program is written by Michael Palin and he did meet a female member of the BOPE and a police brass band that was working in the favelas but there were still lawless areas where he had an experienced guide. He did mention the cable cars and social programs designed to unite the city. I could not include everything in a short summary. I have added "what was" which I left out because I was too quick . If you can access the BBC iplayer here is the link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nv9ch/Brazil_with_Michael_Palin_The_Road_to_Rio/ or if not the linkto the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nv9ch from which i wrote much of the summary plus from the program itself. REVUpminster (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just had another thought Palin said Belo Horizonte was Brazil's 6th largest city but the wiki article says it is the third largest Metropolitan area but if Palin is wrong I cannot change it as it is in the program just as if he said 2+2=5 it would have to be included.REVUpminster (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand you. But it is still a quite absurdical statement. It is true that it bought great advances in the security area, as in 2000, when the police strategy was not as good as it is now and Pacifying Police Units were not even thought of, Rio was the most violent Brazilian capital, and in 2010 it was played down to the 6th most pacifical, but the single word "world" makes it absurdical, we still have much more serious wars in various countries, Colombian and Mexican violence here in Latin America itself were (and probably still are, IDK) waaay greater than that of Brazil, it can't be compared to disputes between drug dealers or between drug dealers and the police, even if both have last technology European guns and for an ex-capital of a major country and beta global city such feeling is an unbelievable hell. Lguipontes (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just stopping by

I've answered you on my talk page. By the way, could you check the IPA on Miguel Veloso? As far as I remember a non-native speaker put it there and therefore we can't be sure if it's correct. Thanks. --Fncd (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to say in your talk page... It is a tragedy, I wrote TONS of text when responding you. I don't know exactly why I'm so verbose, perhaps I need some therapy, so I will not lose interest of people because of being tl;dr as you can see in my talk page. Would you mind some 35 lines (the width of my screen corresponds roughly to 2 wide open hands of mine; they aren't big at all) of random information? xD Lguipontes (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's no problem. There are no rules saying that chatting on user talk pages is anyhow forbidden, just discouraged at best. --Fncd (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Shit man, I've totally forgotten about your answer. I'll reply until the morning. In the meanwhile, could you provide BP IPA for the following articles? Copa Libertadores, Copa Sudamericana and South American Championship of Champions. I've already provided Spanish transcriptiones for these. It'd be also nice if you checked the IPA on Hernâni José da Rosa, since I suspect the first vowel and possibly the rhotic (if it were a Spanish name it would be transcribed as alveolar trill, in fact as you know it's in free variation with alveolar tap in this position) to be incorrect. Thanks in advance. --Fncd (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen

Hello Lguipontes. I am Dianna and I am an administrator on this wiki. While we welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Gisele Bündchen, we cannot accept original research. The unsourced material you introduced in the guise of a citation to the Bündchen article has been removed. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Diana. Do you realize that my unsourced text was trying to explain the cultural background behind the difference of opinions of each source and can be deduced to be valid by logic, right? I really understand the point behind verifiability, but that is not an academic topic, not every information we have here is sourced, and that is an actually helpful sidenote. Lguipontes (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Deducing by valid logic equals original research. If you don't have a source, don't put it in. Unsourced information in our articles can and should be removed. I have done some copy edits and other improvements to the article. -- Dianna (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not an issue for me anymore and I think it is not of importance to the article, but... If you want to, I can try to find a source that indicates a light eye phenotype that has mixed colors and is called gray. I'm not taking it out of my head or using popular knowledge, I know I read it, I just don't remember where. Lguipontes (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Conhecimento de mirandês

Viva. Segundo o registo, contribuistes para mwl.wikipedia em algum momento no passado. Na minha opinião, alguma das contribuições que analisei foi linguisticamente relevante. Ultimamente tenho andado a tentar perceber o estado linguístico de mwl.wikipedia. Seria um grande auxílio se pudésseis revelar alguma informação sobre o vosso conhecimento da língua mirandesa. Podeis contactar-me na minha página de discussão. Muito obrigado desde já. Saúde. Garsd (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Viva. Acabo de receber uma mensagem na minha página de discussão deixada por 177.65.49.210 firmada "Lguipontes" que parece ser resposta a minha mensagem anterior para vós. Se fostes mesmo vós quem a deixou, poderíeis, após login, firmá-la novamente usando ~~~~ (4 tiles) de forma a confirmá-lo? Muito obrigado. Garsd (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Recebi a vossa confirmação. Muito obrigado. Garsd (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Convite à discussão

Viva. Gostaria de convidar-vos para a discussão decorrente em mwl.wikipedia sobre a minha proposta de recomendação. Esta proposta, a ser aceite, cambiará radicalmente o método de edição de mwl.wikipedia que tem vindo a ser encorajado até hoje: Biquipédia:Acolhimiento para lhusófonos. Na sua essência, a minha proposta regulamenta que qualquer tradução mecânica de texto tem de ser revista por um humano com conhecimento avançado de mirandês antes de ser aposta como conteúdo no domínio principal. Considero que esta proposta representa uma mudança de mwl.wikipedia para melhor, mas radical. Por isso, gostaria que fosse discutida o mais amplamente possível antes de aprovada. Calorosamente vos convido! Saúde. Garsd (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The anonymous user you responded to in Talk:Afro-Brazilian

Lguipontes, I see that you posted a long reply to an anonymous user in the Afro-Brazilian talk page. I hope you don't take it in a bad way if I advise you to be careful about that anon. He is quite probably User:Opinoso, and if so, he does not shy from using personal information about other people to make heavy insults and try to make people give up editing Wikipedia. He managed to do that for many years here, effectively achieving a monopoly on articles related to race and ethnicity in Brazil, and was even able to co-opt administrative help for his actions.

Be well, Ninguém (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it won't be possible. I am just a teenager aspie and hikikomori young adult from Baixada Fluminense. Most of information about me here would be completely discloseted at request, and it can be very personal. I would even show parts of my body if it was e.g. orkut. As a good carioca da gema, I am intimate with the stranger, and bullying will not affect me unless people start doing death threats with very specific and confidential information as a neo-Nazi did with me in 2010. Something homophobia teached me is that the other is always dumber and weaker than you when you are victimized. I don't react to "criticism" negatively anymore, not even from the pack of assholes I have in my family. I am here mostly for fun, and I think the important persons, such as Aeusoes1 with whom I have to work with, know this and if they don't wish me well with their own reasons (I can only ask God for a bit more of malandragem maturity...), at least they demonstrate very collegiate attitudes, politeness and tolerance to a level that would make sites like this at least a 10% better place if everyone acted the same.

I am just concerned that a user so supposedly influential in such Wikipedia topic would be that biased, and even more, encouraging people to GTFO of here. Such environment would be a serious, serious, seeeeeeeeeeeeeeerious issue. If I had the evidence, I'd call a look from whatever person that was supposed to take care of it myself, from that new administrator to Jimbo Wales, even if I never had to appeal to the "moderaçaaaaaaaaum" here unless when an IP given to me was formerly flagged for being an open proxy or when I had an edit war and was even blocked with a Filipino trying to know more of Portuguese phonology than me, just to subsequently disappear. Lguipontes (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to know that you know how to deal with this kind of bully. And, thankfully, he is no longer influencial here, due to an openly racist post he made about a Brazilian singer. Ninguém (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please assist me and the community regarding that rogue editor Somedifferentstuff on the maduro page, I cannot keep up with all the edits he is doing, his account should be reviewed but I do not know how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Lguipontes. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Talk:Pope Francis in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Errors attributable to American punctuation—have you seen any?

Lguipontes, on WT: MoS, you say alluded to American quotes leading to errors, and I am guessing that you refer to the U.S. practice of putting periods and commas inside the quotation marks, "like this."

Have you ever seen American-style punctuation cause errors? What were they? I've heard a lot of people say "U.S. punctuation causes confusion and mistakes!" but no one has ever given a real-world example or even a convincing hypothetical example. Have you seen one?

A lot of people who don't like American punctuation argue that it causes errors, but none of them have ever given a real-world example. In all my years of writing and editing in U.S. English, I've never once seen someone make a mistake or misunderstand text because the period or comma was inside the quotation marks. I want to know if errors attributable to U.S. punctuation are Bigfoot (mythical) or the platypus (thought to be mythical but eventually proven to exist). Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I repeat common sense sometimes because I may agree with the way things are, but I am not an expert, not even to an amateur level, in pretty much no subject. Well, when you mention a name or a term quoted by someone that doesn't contain or isn't followed by a comma, it becomes kind of (not totally) inaccurate in my opinion. See the changes I did to "works" here. IMO, it was certainly an inprovement. here. I think a quote such as this is supposed to have only the exact title, not something more inside of it. Doing so is something that only happens for American English, in pretty much all languages I am used to (Portuguese, Spanish, French, Japanese, Italian) it works regarding this as a punctuation error so to your average speaker of elsewhere in the world this may look confusing (especially if containing a period as some book titles have dots in the end of them). Lguipontes (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So no, you haven't seen anything that caused mistakes. You only saw something that you didn't like, the way that "theatre" looks strange and misspelled to an American writer who is used to "theater."

You should stop saying "American English punctuation causes mistakes and confusion" because you are only spreading rumors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you ever notice that I'm a sloth? Let me introduce myself. I admit I can say wrong things, but things you already know about me is that my native language is not English, that I never did a language course (so such obvious questions I raised here in the last days wouldn't have popped out), that I'm an adult in my country but would still be a teenager in about half or more of national legislations in the world, that I am a high school student, and that in 3 years here I just completed 2000 live edits tomorrow, some 1500 of them for articles. Do you want me to go in the MoS talk page and admit I did know nothing again? Sorry, but I bet this shouldn't be news to nobody. I pay attention to the fact I'm extremely n00b at pretty much everything and that is why I always question all my doubts to more experienced (online and in life) Wikipedians over most issues before actually doing something if I can, and I admit that I tend to err as hell. I even got insulted in my native language here in the Portuguese version of this website for supposedly editting without knowing bollocks once (and I didn't engage in an edit war in spite of sources with such person, so it was unnecessary). So yeah, sorry for saying something that is BS. Lguipontes (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I've never interacted with you before the current conversation on WT: MoS, so I wouldn't say that I know you well enough to notice anything other than your posts there.

I do not expect you to go to the MoS page and go "I was wrong! I was wrong!" I just don't want you to do it again: I want you to stop saying "American punctuation causes mistakes" because you don't know that it does. You're only spreading rumors, and that does lead to misconceptions and mistakes.

Don't mistake my meaning: 1. There is no rule on Wikipedia against spreading rumors; it's just bad form. 2. There's not even a rule against lying; it's just bad form. 3. There's certainly no rule saying that you have to do what I want you to; that would be stupid. You don't have to stop spreading rumors and making misleading statements, but I'm allowed to ask you to stop: Please stop.

Background: Wikipedia's rule against American punctuation is like a political issue. Personally, I hate that I'm required to use incorrect punctuation on articles that are supposed to be in American English. People argue about this issue a lot. You probably shouldn't get involved unless you are willing to be part of a long discussion.

I've been accused of edit warring when I wasn't too. It's not fun. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I said in the section I created in talk:MoS I am Brazilian and was 17 in 2012. I didn't say I was a schoolboy as 16 though, what is way more accurate than me saying I am currently a high school student, what I did (the school options I have here are waste of patience and time, they won't really help me, and I'm too poor to afford for the good ones, so I will find a way to go through the 2 final grades in just a year or even half a year, but it isn't disponible in my city and I had to wait to be legally adult, and from there make a course for people trying to do a good vestibular).

I thought it was essentially wrong because Wikipedia official policy seems to indicate it so. I didn't know of this dispute, that must have started years ago. I am relatively slow in English Wikipedia, and I only started to search off discussions and stare people for acquiring my own social skills here recently. Until 2012 I didn't know of AN/I for example. It would be bad for me to be so n00b here, because I came here to help and I would want to always put the information I believe to be correct and have my reasons to, but other people are always prone to misunderstand or misquote what I said and in every place I go to, I prize my reputation a lot.

I won't spread rumors unless they come from reliable sources and they help (for example, that certain Brazilian ex-president is a closeted atheist, or that somehow Brazilian censuses hugely underestimate atheists and agnostics among the general irreligious population). I did not lie and I think I will never lie here, I can be wrong, but I don't insert information I know to not be true. I would do it for courtesy because the rumour I spread certainly affects you and what you do here trying to bring out a better Wikipedia and it was not nice. Frankly speaking the last thing I would be labeled would be obedient or disciplined, I can do a lot of shit going against the opinions of an immense number of people if I believe myself to be right (and that is why I try to behave and accumulate knowledge before I end up ending my contribution time here in a disastrous, frustrating, disappointing way) so I will hear what people say against my will only if I need their approval for what I do (that is what happens here, hahahaha).

And of course, for courtesy, I will stop saying this from now on! Even though having to read that what is right in the internet is wrong in my real life and vice-versa is a bit crazy. Why can't English just go through language reform to settle those issues and explain why it is, or should not be, so different from closely-related languages?! IMHO I believe it is time to do so after it is for real that it will be the global lingua franca at least for here in 100 years and of central interest not only to the Anglosphere but to the whole world. Lguipontes (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Because the Americans threw a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor so that they wouldn't always have to do what the British tell them! As for closely related languages, the closest one to English is German. Should we start capitalizing every noun like they do? Or should the Germans stop doing it just because no one else does? Or maybe we could just accept that languages are different from each other.

As for American punctuation, there is no real issue to settle. "Tuck the periods and commas inside the quotation marks" is a pretty simple rule.

People thought that French would be the language for the whole world once. Then things changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bergoglio

The right pronunciation is [berˈgɔʎʎo], [bɛrˈgɔʎʎo] is surely wrong: "e" is pronunced /ɛ/ only if stressed (and not in all of the cases); who believes the contrary has no idea of italian phonology. "Jorge" is a spanish name and is pronunced only is spanish, being "Giorgio" the italian form. You can be sure that nobody in Italy call him /dʒordʒe/, and this would be totally wrong anyway, beacause in italian "j" is pronunced /j/ and not /dʒ/. In other words, your edit – far from being appopriated – was a complete mess, despite being made in bona fide. From now on, given the above mentioned explanation , I'll consider the restoration of the wrong pronunciation as a vandalism, that is a edit made in mala fide. --Ebdòmero (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Angolans in Brazil

I'm sorry that this scrolled off WP:REFUND before anyone replied. As it was a PROD deletion, I have restored it; but as a similar article was decisively deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angolan Brazilian, I have userfied it for you to User:Lguipontes/Angolans in Brazil where you can work on it. Before returning it to the main space, please check with Juliancolton (talk), the admin who closed the AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I know it was 2 months ago, but I see you wanted to contact me (my old account was Fncd, I wanted to come back under the same name but forgot the password, I don't really remember why I blanked the pages), here's my mail: [deleted content]. I don't use AOL or anything like this because it takes a while for me to write in English. And there aren't any "email this user" buttons available on Wikipedia I'm afraid, unless you make one. Cheers --Ahls23 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank gosh, Fncd! Quem é vivo sempre aparece ("those alive always appear"). For a moment I got very concerned you were depressed, sick or anything like that (I started to not only have gratitude but also liking you as a close friend for apparent no reason; I think it is the autism-spectrum thingy combined with my isolation from the outside world since early 2012, there are another possibilities but I won't start my rising Aquarius, Mars in Virgo and most especially Moon in Cancer emo drama in public like this and in short idk). I am not addicted to Wikipedia but I would not get out of here that blunt.

I deleted your email from this version on. I think you will get tons of spam from now on. Real time English, eh? In 2011 I represented some 6 or 7 Brazilians, being the only that mastered English, in an American chat that started to block us because we spoke no English. While I was accused by the Americans of using Google Translate because at that time I had none of my contemporary speed at doing so, I think I did it pretty well, because I resolved most of the issues and made them all unblocked after the evil moderator, that also blocked us as long as we shouted a word and thus identified us as n00bs, went away. Also when me and my mother watch/ed Desperate Housewives, Once Upon a Time and Revenge, the Brazilian version of Sony often had a major fail at showing the subtitles, so I had to translate some 2-5 minutes. But I never get fully used to English and Spanish accents though, they are too different in prosody, kinda rushed, so I will still lose parts. I once had a Scottish girl in my Windows Live Messenger, but it sucked as I had to use a translator since when I was 13 (2008) my knowledge of English was still pretty poor. That is what initially pushed me to truly learn English.

It is at the toolbox, when you go to userspace of a user that publicly revealed his or her email at preferences (something by the lines of "allow other users to contact me by email"). You're right though, it is a link rather than a button. Now I can't mail you, as pretty normal for autumn in the tropical savanna temperature has suddenly risen 15°C in a few hours, I didn't sleep well, and my PC is trolling me like hell (shitty orkut and facebook scripts make Firefox enter coma), so I feel like fainting and it took me some 5 hours to write only this. Lguipontes (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care about the spam, the company which provides those mailboxes (owns the servers etc.) are themselves spamming sobs, while claiming that such messages from them are anything but spam. But that's a common practice, eh? I suggest that from now on we rather exchange private messages via e-mail, because I don't really know whether it's that much allowed here. Probably isn't.

Google Translate is a peculiar thing, all automatically translating websites and software is. I personally use it only to read long passages of text in Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian. It was only a week ago or so when I finally learnt the difference between the soft and hard signs, huh. It's a matter of one stroke: <ь> amd <ъ>. But no wonder I didn't know the difference - Russian uses it very rarely nowadays, and the first time I was encountering it on every page was when I was reading a book about phonology about Belarussian. Yeah, in Belarussian. Ain't easy, but it's either try harder and finally learn or know nothing. But anyway, getting back to the Google Translate thing - when I used to play Battlefield: Bad Company 2 really often, there was a bunch of Russian servers (or French, can't remember) that had it implemented in their chat, translating every sodding message that appeared on the screen into English. I don't need to mention that 95% of the time the meaning of it was completely changed? So for that, it's basically useless. Most people learn the hard way though, by getting kicked and banned all the time. Like your friends, haha.

Be glad though you didn't have to have a voice chat with that Scottish girl. For an unaccustomed ear it sounds noticeably harder to understand than Indian accent, as it has a very open /ɪ/ (with /ɛ/ sounds anything but unusual, real confusing), glottal stops all over the place and "original", shall we say, intonation. Glasgow accent is even harder to understand - retracted /s/, much like in European Spanish and uvular /r/ make it a real challenge to get what the person is saying.

Yes, speaking English with a convincing accent isn't easy. If you want to get better, just listen a lot, imitate a lot (at a slow pace), and you'll subconsciously learn the prosody without really knowing how. Fortunately in this regard languages come in a package deal, you'll have an easy time learning German accent (if you'll want to learn this language) after learning a native-like English accent. The hardest thing is probably not prosody, but the orthography. Son, brother, mother, monk, one, none, etc. are all for example pronounced with /ʌ/ (which is in reality [ɜ] in General American, [ɐ] in RP [but it's not black and white in the latter case, as speakers above, say, 60-70 years can use a fronted [ʌ] instead [check Accents of English by John Wells for more info], and younger speakers may use a fronted and lowered [ʌ] instead, and as far as I know speakers of RP from Scotland are also allowed to use their "native" quality of STRUT in RP, which is also a fronted [ʌ].]), not with /ɒ/ (which in reality is [ɑ~ɑː] [or open central] in GA, and often is [ɔ] for younger RP speakers), as the spelling might suggest. So that's the hardest part. For this, I suggest buying Longman Pronunciation Dictionary.

I didn't really check the toolbox, I just wrongly assumed that such button/link doesn't exist, as I've never seen an userpage with it (or at least I don't remember it).

A cold shower is good for high temperatures. Actually, very good. I remember one time I took a cold bath, with only cold water in the tub. It's probably common knowledge that it used to be one of the Nazi experiments in places like Auschwitz-Birkenau, testing how long a person will survive in such conditions. Well, stupid me forgot about it and after a few minutes felt "kinda weird feeling in legs" and got the hell out of the water before it did any damage to the body.

Also, is it really autumn there? I know Australia and Kiwis have the seasons mixed up, didn't know South America also does. I know you don't have winter though.

I'll mail you an interesting website. You'll probably love it, if you liked when I told you about canIPA. It's something a lot bigger. EDIT: Yeah, but first I need to have your address. Send me it and I'll reply with the link. --Ahls23 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mmkay, will mail you from now on. :3 Lguipontes (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you get my reply? Check the spam folder, I don't know how your mailbox handles urls. --Ahls23 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, in early afternoon my laptop fell in the ground while I was waking up with it to my side (I usually don't go sleep, I just faint) so I had to use the day before checking out the internet. Now I read your message. And yes, the link went, but it is better if you write it "por extenso" (i.e. one instead of 1, dot instead of ., idk how to say that in English), because it is better since Firefox and Google are really overprotective with those things (especially with NoScript, RequestPolicy, WOT, Adblock Edge, Ghostery, DoNotTrackMe and MaskMe extensions that make me don't need anti-viruses, anti-spywares and anti-adwares, but make my browser unbearable to use wikis, social networks and/or flash at the same time - what causes me losing Wikipedia edits because I am such orkut and YouTube addict). Lguipontes (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I don't have an antivirus as well. Not sure if I'm that pro or just stupid... or lazy. Anyway, those are my last Windows days anyway, let the Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora/whatever (haven't decided yet) journey begin. Yay. --Ahls23 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually once had paid Kaspersky in my laptop, but I didn't install it again after the content of the hard disk got deleted and it installed Seven (it was initially Vista), and now I have a free version of a common corporation antivirus. My desktop was saved in late 2012 (it was broken since 2009) and had no antivirus until recently, but the equivalent to CCleaner that deleted my History and cookies without my consent, and is also very nice and increased its efficiency in ~30%, so their maker recommended me their antivirus as well and now both of my PCs have it.

LOL, Fncd, you're smartie! I don't know nuffing of anything useful on PC, I edit wiki badly and took Ages to learn how to deal with it properly, I don't know how to edit images properly, and don't understand Java or any other kind of programming. I would never make such adventure of using any kind of Linux. I'd rather get Ruimdows XP or Vista again. Hell, even 98 or Millennium. I always thought of myself as your everyman end user. Lguipontes (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I had to take a break from the internet. Anyway, I'll answer your latest mail shortly. Sorry for the wait. --Ahls23 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sevillese

I'm sorry to have reverted your last edition in Crown of Aragon. I think you got some data mixed-up. Anyway, I'm very interested in your comment about Sevillese, a name that I haven't found in Google. Could you give me any reference about it? Thank you. Jotamar (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you got the data mixed up, too. The map of Crown of Aragon includes almost the whole of Navarra, that wasn't Spanish-speaking at the time – as we Lusophones and Catalans know, Spanish was spoken in about only half of its contemporary territory in Spain now – and there is evidence that the language they spoke there is indeed Basque.

About Sevillese Sevillian (my first language is not English and we don't use "-ano" for many languages), see Mozarabic language#Native name. Spanish first appeared as the direct ancestor of the Cantabrian dialect around what was then the Duchy of Cantabria, far away from the hinterland of Iberian Peninsula; much less would it be widely spoken in the area where the frontiers between Aragon and Castile didn't reflect language very accurately, Murcia (actually, Aragonese was then spoken there, and Valencian still is).

Even though the language of the Reconquista was starting to prevail, it would be necessary many years for these languages completely die out (well, even with the pressure for uniformity the closest ancestors of Spanish, Galician-Portuguese and Astur-Leonese, still survive very well in some areas of Spain), and that means that the commoners in Aragonese territory didn't at the time speak the language of the Christian crusaders of the other side of the frontier. Thus, it seemed bollocks to me to assume that Basque wasn't spoken in Aragon, but Spanish was. Lguipontes (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The map you mention is too coarsely drawn and not just in the limit of Navarre and Aragón; it should be mended. Anyway, Navarre has never been a part of the Crown of Aragon. On the other hand, it is well known that in ancient times language varieties related to Basque were spoken in northern Aragón, and it's not impossible that some of them survived in the middle ages, but that's too speculative to be included in the article.

As for Spanish, the language spoken in much of Aragon in the 15th century was probably too similar to it to be called by any other name. And the same goes for part of the Valencia kingdom.

As a final comment, the notion that Aragonese was ever spoken in Murcia is little more than a phantasy. Best regards, Jotamar (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, then. I assumed the map to be fully accurate. ^^"

Eh? But Galician and Portuguese are more closely related languages to Spanish and they were always regarded as different languages on their own... Aragonese and Valencian aren't even West Iberian. But anyway, as I said, I am not expert on the subject be it by folk history, what people learn in school (since I'm Brazilian, I indeed learnt on the history of the Iberian Peninsula, but the approach was naturally Lusocentric) or academic studies.

Well, the end of Aragón is in the border of Murcia, and languages do not necessarily reflect political borders... That is why I didn't remove Spanish at the second time. But yeah, some maps on the former extent of Astur-Leonese and Aragonese seem to be indeed exaggerated (especially some from Portugal, and all those enormous Leonese influence only appear in the Spanish side when it is well-known that the coursins of Mirandese were spoken to a far greater extent in the other -giggles-). I usually take those with a grain of salt, but border areas didn't seem a crazy idea. Lguipontes (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

SSM Brazil

In answer to your specific questions:

• You are absolutely not allowed to use Wikipedia itself to source facts, it's policy. You have to have outside sources.
• Inaccurate: you said Brazil was the third in the Southern hemisphere, but it's the fourth (you forgot Argentina).
• Trivia: It's notable when something happens the first time, but not the third or fourth. Where do you end? The second Portuguese speaking nation? The easternmost South American nation?

The other dozen or so nations that have SSM do not have sections like that. SSM in Brazil is momentous, but I personally don't see the need for rankings. I'm happy to discuss this further. Czolgolz (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I know the policy (I had to assure people of it here about twice or thrice a month when I was the most active in 2012). But really, am I the only person in this website that perceives that the policy on verifiability is taken to a far too extreme extent? If it is done by a non-anonymous long-term user, is believed to be true, and has its verifiability only 1 link away, I think that removing it for WP:V is really paranoid. Don't take it personally, but it is something that happens to me all the time at this place, and I am afraid that I am so oblivious to the common sense even if I read rules with attention many times a year.

Argentina, South Africa, Brazil. Uruguay and New Zealand didn't yet take place.

It is second in L.A. and Lusofonia, and third in the Southern Hemisphere. I mean, a whole half of Planet Earth. While some of those are really unnecessary, I think mentioning at least two would have its merit.

I don't see an obvious and big need too, I just disagreed with the reasons for removal. Lguipontes (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pseudo-anglicism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your disruptive and uninformed edits

I'm getting tired of your random unsourced uninformed edits like this [8]. Yellow-coloured countries like Oman, Syria do enforce those laws (eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Syria). Stop messing with this template. Yellow does not mean unenforced! Jeez. Cavann (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cavann (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Lguipontes, don't worry... you're nice and civil and this will be resolved. People that go crying to admins when they don't get it "their way" generally doesn't help; especially not when they don't get the meaning of irony... L.tak (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are very kind words (perhaps in the top 5 I received here... Do you like barnstars?). I am extremely thankful to read them and really cheerful that someone here (aside of a certain Pole that goes always disappearing for long periods) likes me. Thank you very much! Lguipontes (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)