User talk:109.77.201.123

MOS:CITIZEN

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please show a little good faith and discuss the article on the relevant article talk page. -- 109.77.201.123 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

During your block, please take the time to read MOS:CITIZEN, especially the part that says Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I read it and commented on it on the article talk page. I do not believe that guideline applies as clearly as you think it does, I asked for discussion repeatedly but got none. WP:BRD cycle allows reverts if no one discusses.

I explained my edits with clear edit summaries. I repeatedly stated that those two references where there specifically to support her Brazilian heritage, and if that wording was disputed then there was absolutely no reason to keep the contradictory references. Those references could perhaps be used elsewhere in the article but they absolutely do not belong in the lead section if you insist on disputing the wording they were only ever there to support. I was disappointed that you did not explain in your edit summary why you thought it was appropriate to restore those contradictory references.

Again please discuss on the article talk page. -- 109.77.201.123 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss; our policy on enumerating every ethnicity in the WP:LEDE is pretty simple and clear; we don't do it unless it's connected to their notability. If you resume violating that policy when this block expires, the next block will be for a longer duration.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines are "generally" more than a bit vague. You seem to think this is entirely clear cut. Please make your comment clearly on the article talk page, for the record. Please also explain there why you think it is appropriate to include those references in the lead section. -- 109.77.201.123 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's fine for the references to appear in the lede or elsewhere. You were blocked for repeatedly adding "Brazilian" to the lede and short description. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

In general _relevant_ references might be acceptable in the lead (and even then the WP:LEDE should be summarizing the article body, and references in the lead probably should not be needed at all in most cases). But those references no longer serve any purpose in the lead section. They were added there specifically because her ethnicity as Brazilian-Portuguese was disputed. Eventually someone pointed to MOS:CITIZEN. I do not think it applies as clearly as you say it does but if as User talk:Ohnoitsjamie argues that guidelines does actually apply then those references no longer have any purpose in the lead section as I have repeatedly tried to tell you they should also go. Complete the edit that you believe is applicable and remove those sources that specifically highlight her as Portuguese-Brazillian. Do it properly or don't do it at all.

Someone else might change the article in future. If you want to end a discussion then end it clearly on the article talk page. Yet again I ask that you discuss (or _declare_ as you seem to be doing) on the talk page why this is as clear as you think it is and also clarify why there is any point in keeping those seemingly irrelevant references in the lead section. -- 109.77.201.123 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NUMERAL

You just started editing today and are now blocked for disruptive editing, yet you revert an edit I made four days ago telling me I should have left an edit summary for what I thought was an uncontroversial edit? [1] Firstly, "it received hundred-thousand signatures" is not grammatically correct—a definite or indefinite article is always put before "hundred thousand". One would say "it received one hundred thousand signatures" or at least "a hundred thousand signatures". That does not fit MOS:NUMERAL as it's not expressible in one or two words, because per the example later on in MOS:LARGENUM, it's three words with no hyphenation: "The reader may be assumed to interpret large round numbers (100,000 troops) as approximations. Writing a quantity in words (one hundred thousand troops), especially if the indefinite article (a/an) is used instead of the word one (a hundred thousand troops), can further emphasize its approximate nature." (Which is somewhat contradictory as per MOS:NUMERAL it is not an "integer greater than nine expressible in one or two words" it should be expressed as a number.) Obviously we can type it out but the article didn't do so correctly and you made no attempt to correct the grammar—it appears you just wanted to try to be condescending. Also see later on on MOS:NUMERAL: "Other numbers are given in numerals (3.75, 544) or in forms such as 21 million (or billion, trillion, etc. – but rarely thousand or hundred)." So it's more common to say "100,000 signatures than "one hundred thousand signatures", which is unnecessarily wordy. Ss112 04:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

---