text:
User talk:Opinoso

/Archive 1

OPINOSOOOOOO!!! OPINOSOOOOO!!! OPINOSOOOOOOO!!! OPINOSOOOOOOO!!! OPINOSOOOOOOO!!! OPINOSOOOOO!!! OPINOSOOOOO!!!

Unsourced information...
You wrote this in my talk page:

Moreover, once again: personal theories are not allowed at Wikipedia. When you change correct informations to incorrect ones, like this [3], another disruption. Plase, read carefully all the rules of Wikipedia, before posting. Opinoso (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that this has nothing to do with any personal theory of my part. Nor did I remove any information. I merely added a Fact Tag to a piece of unsourced information. If it is true that most settlers in Brazil "jumped ship to live among the Indians", which is possible, then it should not be difficult to find sources for that information. User:Ninguém 18:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert
Please notice I have filed a complaint about your latest personal attacks against me. User:Ninguém 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am composing this stern warning for both of you at this point, as we've already visited these issues in ANI in the past. Opinoso, I've recommended that User:Ninguém bring his concerns before the WP:3O peers, for 3rd party opinion. Hopefully, this will help put to rest any content disputes that are ongoing at White Brazilian. In the meantime, I would remind you to;

 * Remain civil,
 * Assume good faith,
 * Avoid personal attacks.
 * Something that you might want to also do at this point is apologize for any misconceptions or slights that have been issued or perceived. I'm not saying that either party is guilty of this (far be it from me to be judge and jury, too many hats!), nor am I saying that you have to apologize to make this work, but it would aid in promoting the process. Edit Centric (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

calling edits vandalism
You're being talked about at ANI. The meaning of vandalism on en.Wikipedia is narrow. Please don't call cited, good faith edits vandalism. It's true that sometimes, if the PoV of an edit is far from your own, is cited to an unreliable source or mistakenly cited to a reliable one, it may seem like vandalism to you, but unless the edit is straightforwardly meant to harm the project, it may indeed be astray of many policies and guidelines, but it's not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you are both straying from policy.

 * Don't make personal attacks.
 * Don't remove or change other editors' posts from talk pages
 * Don't call good faith edits vandalism.
 * Don't try to own a page.
 * You may not agree with all reliable sources, but WP:V has sway here.
 * Edit by consensus.

Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 * "It's not a serious user" may sound ok when translated back into Portugese but in English, on en.Wikipedia, it could easily be taken as a personal attack. Please stop that. If you're the only user other than User:Ninguém editing the article, then your edits have no consensus over his. I have yet to say anything at all so far about the content, only your behaviour and his. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Languages of Brazil
According to you Spanish is not an "unofficial" language of Brazil. However, the article clearly states that it is spoken in the regions boarding Argentina and Paraguay.Mitch1981 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification
There's a discussion about you at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

what is vandalism?
Hi Opinoso, I've told you about this before, see above, so if you've already stopped doing this, please forgive me. edits like this are not vandalism They may be original research, unsourced or wrong, they may be disruptive or tendentious, they may look like vandalism to you and you may think they should be called vandalism, but they are made in good faith and hence are not vandalism on en.Wikipedia (please read this blue link if you haven't already done). Calling an edit vandalism when it is not can be taken as a personal attack, no matter how unhelpful that edit may otherwise be. If you have questions about this, please ask me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian
Please don't edit war at White Brazilian. Moreover, you're making comments about the editor, rather than writing only about content and sources. These comments could be taken as personal attacks, which aren't allowed. Please use the article talk page to discuss content with the editor. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi Opinoso. Many of your recent edits have lacked edit summaries. These are easy to provide and very helpful. They're particularly important when you're editing an article over which there's a disagreement. As you know, many of your recent edits have been to such articles. Please provide edit summaries, as these not only help people understand what you are doing but also show how helpfully informative you are trying to me. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

edit warring
Opinoso, you're still edit warring at German Brazilian and White Brazilian. Please stop that. Rather, talk about the content on the article talk pages, or find a new way to deal with the content, don't revert, you've done that far too much already and it's not helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

yet more edit warring
This edit of yours is bizarre. There is no blanket rule against removal of factual, sourced information. And this information, while it may be factually correct, isn't even sourced. The relevant section of the article starts by referring the reader to Riograndenser Hunsrückisch for more information; this section of an article on a dialect of German certainly does not benefit from asides about Brazilian society, education policy, etc.

The last time I encountered you was on 30 May, when you and User:Ninguém were edit warring at German Brazilian. Because of this, the following day I constructed one sandbox for you and one for him. He has used his. You have studiously ignored yours. I also wrote: I shall take a particularly dim view of any potentially controversial edit to an article on any ethnic group in Brazil (or any other closely related matter) as long as this article is protected. After a few days of lying low, this is just what you seem to be doing.

Edit wars are a waste of time and resources. So stop edit warring. And either edit your sandbox at Talk:German Brazilian, or provide a persuasive explanation there of why you are not doing so.

Alternatively, keep on going the way you are going now, and look forward to being blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Moroever, as you have been told many times before, don't comment on the editor, only on content and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian People
It does not matter what you think. If you keep on this war edits, I will report you. Was I clear? - --Lecen (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I try to be patient... let´s go... First of all, it was I who uploaded the picture as you can see on Commons (almost all 19th Century Brazilian Pictures I was the one who uploaded) and the book says she is a mulatto ("Mulata"). Second of all, all three pictures are merely illustrative. I don´t know who you are and I don´t care. I believe you are one of those "Ethnic Cops" who wander around Wikipedia seeing racism everywhere. If there was the picture of a white girl first, it´s racism! If a woman is called "mulatto" (as she has White facial traces) it´s racism! I don´t care. But I will if you keep messing around the articles. - --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder myself why you complain so much about the image of a white girl and later about the picture of a brown woman. You didn´t ask for sources for the other images I´ve posted. I´ve seen that you have something against white people and is too over-protecting about anything related to black people. Anyway, the article is not yours and you can´t erase an information because the book is not available on-line. If that was the case, no article on wikipedia could be verifiable. And call an administrator. Because if you don´t, I do it myself. - --Lecen (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

hey
Hi Opinoso, this was not vandalism at all (not bad faith, not meant to harm). Also, I suggested he do this on any talk page, if he wanted to: Your understanding and patience would be very much appreciated. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian
My God! So, if someone tries to change something in an article, it needs first to tell it in the talk page. However, you, and only you, can do whatever you want including starting an edit war in another article? I don´t remember that you used your rule in the article "Brazilian people". Be careful, there are too many complaining about you in here. - --Lecen (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven´t done any "personal attacks" against you. Try at least to be coherent if possible. And there is no "work from somebody else". Once you write into Wikipedia, anyone can change it. That article is NOT yours. Try to understand that once and for all. But I dont´care, the article it´s horrible, just like the other one about the Brazilian People. Both deserved to be great, but now I know why they are so bad. Keep going with the good work! - --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

blocked
I've warned you time and again not to call good faith edits vandalism. Doing so is a personal attack, for which I have blocked you 24 hours. Please have another look at WP:Vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

After further review, I've lengthened this block to 48 hours owing to edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

 * What a curious block. I restored the original sources about those figures because somebody recently replaced them with sources that do not even talk about those figures (and are not reliable, because it's from a site writen by unknown columnists).

And I included the source about the 3 million Portuguese in São Paulo, because the user "Ninguém" included a "fact tag" there. Curiously, the user "Ninguém" reverted the original sources I included. Then, he's the one who started the edit-warring.

Isn't "vandalism" to reverte an user that replaced a "fact tag" with a source and restored the original sources that have been there since a long time, but somebody replaced them? I gave the source about the Portuguese, and "Ninguém" replace the source once again with a "fact tag" and he also reverted to the "new" sources which are from a not reliable site, including the one about the Portuguese which do not even talk about the figure.

I included the source which does talk about 3 million Portuguese and it was reverted by "Ninguém" without any explaination. Isn't vandalism to erase a source and replace it with a "fact tag"? Is it a "good fatih edit"? If this is not vandalism, if it's a normal good faith edit to erase sources and replace them with fact tags, please tell me. Opinoso (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Good faith edits, made by an editor who thinks they're helpful, even those which you think look crazy or harmful, aren't vandalism (I've told you this many times). They may be wrong, unsupported, disruptive, whatever, but they're not vandalism. Calling them vandalism is a wanton personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * To erase a souce and to replace it with a "fact tag" is not to "think an edit is helpful". The only definition is "vandalism". "Ninguém" is a not a new user, he does know very well what he is doing in Wikipedia. He knows very well that I posted a source that gives the 3 million figure, and there was no reason to reverte my edit, unless he was trying to rise another disruption, as usual. And also, he is able to know very well that a site with articles writen by known columnist is a not a reliable source, because he is the one always claiming other users to only use "reliable sources". There's nobody innocent there. Opinoso (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism. It may be mistaken, it may be disruptive, but it's not vandalism, which is narrowly defined on en.Wikipedia. I've told you and warned you about this many times before. If, after your block is up, you call more good faith edits "vandalism," the next block will be much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * If to call "vandalism" an edit of another user who erases sources deserves a 48 hours block, while the user who replaced a source with a fact tag and replaced reliable sources with a site of unknown columnists does not even deserve a "warning" then it's, at least, contradictory. Funny, because these "good faith mistakes" of "Ninguém" only happens when there are figures about Italians, or Germans or other non-Portuguese people involved. Also, these "good faith mistakes" only happens in articles or sessions that I posted. Maybe this is a simple coincidence, with millions of articles in Wikipedia, and only in articles I post it happends. Maybe he's not following my edits, it must be a miraculous coincidence that he only posts where I post. Opinoso (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked you 24 hours for the personal attack (after so many warnings) and another 24 hours for edit warring. I've blocked the other editor 24 hours for edit warring. If you two can't get along, stay away from each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I try as much as I can to be away from the other user, but he follows my edits. I have been out of Wikipedia for some days (and, like another miraculous coincidence, the other user also appered to have been rarely posting in Wikipedia while I was not posting).

The day I returned, the first edit I made in Afro-Brazilian, almost immediatly user "Ninguém" also posted there. It's clear he's speding hours a day waiting a post from me, so that he can immediatly post after me. 90% of "Ninguém"s posts are exclusive to articles I posted recently. The informations in the São Paulo articles, I was the one who posted them (and he knows it) but somebody changed the sources recently, and I did not notice it. I restored the original, "Ninguém" reverted and then I got blocked because of this.

It only can be a miraculous coincidence that he only posts where I post. If it's not a miracle, then it's a case of an user following the edits of another one. Once again, I try not to post where the other user post, but the contrary does not happen (he only edits where I edit, and the days I was out of Wikipedia, he almost did not post here too). Miraculous coincidence or is somebody following my edits, waiting for an opportunity to rise disruptions? Opinoso (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * He doesn't like your edits. When you make them, he reverts them. I've blocked him for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Maybe it's because I'm neutral and all my edits are sourced. I'm not pro-Italian, or pro-Portuguese or pro any ethnic group. That's the big difference here. His problem with me started when I saw he was trying to give Portuguese a greater importance for Brazil than they really had, based on his personal theories. He even claimed almost all Brazilians are of Portuguese descent, because almost all Brazilians have Portuguese last names. This is insane, because as a colony of Portugal, everybody here received Portuguese surnames, the Indians and the Africans. People from Haiti have French surnames, even though 99% are Blacks.

Then he said his grandparents were of "colonial Portuguese descent". Then I understood why he was trying to inflate the Portuguese influence in Brazil. He cannot admit that the Portuguese influence in Brazil was not as great as he was trying to sell. Brazil is a multiracial country, not a copy of Portugal as the other user wanted to be in the article White Brazilian. Notice that he deslikes Darcy Ribeiro one of the great Braizlian anthropologists. Maybe because Ribeiro shows a multi-ethnic and diverse (and real) Brazil, very different from a copy of Portugal or Europe like some people wish it was.

This is from where his problems with me started. Since them he's been following my edits.

I even stopped editing in White Brazilian, German Brazilian and other articles he was trying to rise discussions and edit-warrings. Unfortunately he keeps following me in other articles. The large difference here is that I do contribute for Wikipedia against vandals and I write big (sourced) texts in several articles, even though last months my contrubutions are being impaired because every week Ninguém forceds me to be engaged in problems with him, even though I try to escape from these problems, sometimes he makes it impossible.

You should, please, tell the other user that there are millions of articles in Wikipedia, and I do not need another user to follow my edits. Also tell him to use sources like me and to be neutral (this is basic), and that I won't follow his edits or even check his contributions page, like he does with me, because I have other things to do. Tell him to leave me alone, and everything is gonna work quite well here. Opinoso (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It's easy, don't edit war. Don't call good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 * And what about the other user only editing where I edit? That's the main problem. Opinoso (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the edit warring stops and you stop calling good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the edit warring stops and you stop calling good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On Darcy Ribeiro and figures for incoming Portuguese during the colonial period
In White Brazilian, this edit introduced Darcy Ribeiro's O Povo Brasileiro as a source for this information:

"According to Darcy Ribeiro before 1850 no more than 500,000 Europeans settled in Brazil ."

Unhappily, I know of no edition of O Povo Brasileiro in 7 or more volumes. Here is the best visualisation I could find of it online:

I have searched it many times. I haven't found the information purported in the article there. Is it possible to ask for a page, a chapter, a quote, that points to that information? Ninguém (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Brasília
Do you know how to read in Portuguese? I don't understand why you changed a referenced material from the Brasília article. The source clearly states that the HDI for Brasília is 0.936. The article is about Brasília and not the Federal District (it has its own separate article). Limongi (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing happened to me
I swear! Thanks for you concern, though. I tend to disappear each year about this time. It's not even a planned thing, just kind of a strange coincidence, as each time I've felt that I should dedicate more time to other facets of my life or other work I'm doing off-WP. This time it happened gradually: it was only supposed to be for a few days, with me returning on a more limited schedule within the week. But it didn't work out that way.

I'll stick around for a few days, at least. I'll do my best not to lose contact for such extended periods of time thereafter. SamEV (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oi!
Dá uma olhadinha aqui, por favor? Brigadão. --Mocu (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Italians Sao Paulo.jpg
File:Italians Sao Paulo.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Italians Sao Paulo.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Opinoso
It's nice to know that you continue to contribute to the Wikipedia, although in the English Wikipedia. We missed you in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I hope we can continue our collaboration in topics related to Brazilian population. You unbiased and wise opinion was always highly respected. I am also very happy to see the imagens of Nilo Peçanha and the Chachá of Uidá among the African Brazilians, altough I am not completely sure that they could be classified in this group (but the people of their times told otherwise). Now I know the old and beautiful city of Quissamã. I would upload some photos of this city, but I'd lost my camera in a dreadful accident. See you soon.

Z.v.P. Toc toc! at 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are one revert away from violating WP:3RR in Brazil, which can lead to a block.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on Brazil. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --  At am a  頭 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Your recent edits to Brazil are being discussed on Talk:Brazil. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
Caro Opinoso, sei que tivemos nossas diferenças no passado, mas acho que é desnecessário ambos persistirem no erro. Seriamos muito mais úteis para os artigos se conseguíssemos colaborar um com o outro do que perder tempo em discussões infindáveis que não levarão a nada. Eu realmente quero terminar de escrever os demais textos sobre o período republicano, para que fiquem tão ricos em informações quanto os outros e que assim aja uma aparente constancia em toda a seção sobre a história do Brasil. Acredito que você viu que retirei ontem várias frases do meu texto, de acordo com suas reclamações. Pedi a opinião de outros editores e fiz novas modificações no texto, retirando mais frases que escrevi. Também disponibilizei um "see also" com ligação direta para o artigo sobre a escravidão no Brasil, assim, os interessados em saberem mais sobre a instituição, poderão dar uma olhada lá. A idéia é deixar a seção sobre o reinado de Pedro II pequena, simples e direta como as demais. Dê uma lida, acredito que agora pode agradar a gregos e troianos. Peço que antes que realize alguma modificação, converse comigo antes, para chegarmos a um acordo. - --Lecen (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict on Brazil
After the last edits of User:Opinoso on this article I felt the situation has gone out of hand, and I have posted on an admin noticeboard to ask for admin intervention. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion or rewrite request
I formated some of the text in your !vote as strikeout. Has Lencen said he has this admiration? Are you a mindreader? If not, please voluntarily delete the text, or rewrite it. You can, of course, delete the strikeout tags I added. It's your writing, but I don't want you two to be at each other's throats when Lencen gets back. If s/he responds in kind, and starts impugning motives to you, it may make consensus considerably more difficult, harming our attempts to improve the encyclopedia. -- Rico  06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Check this out
You are invited to join the discussion at. Rico 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Using ) --  Rico  21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning
For falsly accusing User:Lecen of edit-warring and uncivility on Brazil in this post and this one.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you've been blocked far too often for this kind of thing before. If it starts up again, the next block will be a long one. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict Source " Darcy Ribeiro "
Hi, Where is the page to verify your information?. It is good to add information that you know will be reversed only to encourage the 3RR and blocking other users.--Kusamanic (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Thank you very much! We will continue to make this article grow! Auréola (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
I sympathize with your comments on race and skin color in Brazil. If you can find this book, it may be a useful reference for you in discussion and work on the article: John Norvell (an anthropologist) has an article in the book Border Crossings ed. by Kathy Fine-Dare and S. Rubenstein, in which he argues that Brazil is best thought of us a "pigmentocracy" rather than as either a racial democracy or a racist society. His essay is about the confusion that hapens when pople in the US try to use Brazil as a case study to make points about race. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 07:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not really my own expertise so I don't have much to offer the article discussion, but from your comments I think you would like Norvell's essay and you may be able to use it as a reliable source to support your views. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

pages 3-33 Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. It is a general attempt to summarize the current debates going on concerning race in the US and Brazil. If it is a good essay it will refer to all the major works, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RE
He is accusing us of that because there is more than one person interested in doing a good article, as he is only interested in preventing it... Hehe. Auréola (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, do you have MSN? Passa pra mim! Auréola (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding false information
Ribeiro classifies Chile as new people (mestizo) and not testimony people as you have been claming in all articles about the ethonography of Chile.

You seem obsessed with this subject, you've gone as far as adding that (mis)information into the lead AND body of the article Chilean people. Please stop. That behavior can get you reported for tendentious editing and ultimately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Likeminas (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Yes I saw the talk page and that’s precisely why you need to stop.

The “book” you’re presenting not only contradicts scientific studies (after all Ribeiro’s statements are nothing but his personal opinion), it cannot be easily verified and you’re putting it right there in the lead where actual studies (not simply opinion) are given the appropriate weight. Please stop this tendentious editing as you might get reported if you continue. Likeminas (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Use the talk page of the article, not mine. Likeminas (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning on Original research and POV pushing
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Likeminas (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning on edit warring
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert ruleprohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Likeminas (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

If you carry on with edit warring and disruptive behaviour on these topics, the block lengths will fast lengthen to indefinite. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:
beleza! Ficarei no aguardo. Abs, Auréola (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"White Brazilians": let's get moving quickly
Opinoso, please respond to my open message to you as quickly as you can. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Miranda
If you're still interested in the Carmen Miranda question, there's a new discussion at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-29/Carmen Miranda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
Hi! If you want to help me keep the editions of sub-section "Culture" in the article Brazil (as they were like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=324617070), I thank you. Auréola (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I ask User:Ninguém to help me in reduce the size of the texts. Can you help us? Thank you. Auréola (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotients, etc
Hello Opinoso. There is a question for you at Talk:Arab Brazilian. I hope that you will answer it promptly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion you asked for
At 12:51, in 24 February 2010, you reverted an edit in the article Race in Brazil, stating that a discussion would be necessary. I have started the discussion, showing how and why your insistence in placing material about the relation between race and social class in the section about "miscegenation" is wrong. Can you please go to the Talk Page of that article, and explain why do you think it is correct? Ninguém (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

an obsession
Hello Opinoso. Ninguém draws my attention to this edit of yours. Putting aside for a moment the question of the relative merits of the two versions, yours and his, I'd like to ask you about your edit summary, Re-posting sourced information that was removed and replaced by imaginary "Portuguese" theory (what a ridiculous Portuguese obssession). More precisely, I'd like to ask you about one part of it. Are you implying here that Ninguém suffers from a ridiculous Portuguese obsession? -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

selling a personal opinion
Here's another edit I'd like to ask you about. You say that a table edited by Ninguém is only trying to sell the personal opinion of an user who thinks that every non-Portuguese influence in Brazil is "exaggerate". If I understand you correctly here, you are saying that: Now, perhaps I understand what you are saying, perhaps I don't, and perhaps I half understand. If I understand correctly, you are making a serious charge in the second of these. If you're serious about it, it should be looked into (and by somebody other than myself). Please post it, briefly and clearly, at WP:AN/I. Somebody will look into it, and perhaps censure Ninguém and thank you for drawing their attention to this misuse by Ninguém of editing privileges. On the other hand, perhaps you don't mean what you say -- sleepiness, anger, etc may have led you to misphrase yourself. If this is so, you'd better make a clarification. Because, as you must surely understand by now, WP has a general rule against personal attacks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Ninguém thinks that every non-Portuguese influence in Brazil is exaggerated.
 * 2) Ninguém adds elements to Wikipedia articles merely in order to sell his personal opinions.

Too busy?
Opinoso, you posted an alert at "Wikiquette alerts" about somebody else's edits about 21 hours after I had posted the questions above asking for clarifications. Within those 21 hours, you also found time to edit three other articles but not to respond here. You are of course perfectly within your rights to ignore anybody's questions, but you should know that evasiveness does nothing to help your credibility when you complain elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely not too busy
I see that you're back and editing (e.g. here).

Right then. Please look at a section above this on this talk page. Do you or do you not say that Ninguém adds elements to Wikipedia articles merely in order to sell his personal opinions? If you do, please elaborate. If you do not, please say so clearly. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reply
Here's your reply.

It's really feeble stuff. Here's an example:

 * He already claimed to be of "colonial Portuguese descent" and even used a strange expression (pêlo-duro, something like "hard animal hair" because pêlo means animal hair and duro hard in Portuguese). I never heard about that "pêlo-duro" expression. It seems an internal expression used to describe people of colonial Portuguese ancestry. / I tried to find when he posted that, but I could not find it, I think it was removed for some reason...

How about using the search function? I did, and I found it (or one example of it) here. The section in question reads (after markup-stripping):

 * Second, Brazilians certainly make a big difference between Portuguese immigrants and their descent (“Galegos”, “Portugas”, “Lusos”, “Tugas”, “Lusitanos”), who are often victims of prejudice, and the usual target of Brazilian “Polish Jokes”, and people descended from the colonial settlers (“Pelos-duros”).

So the context is a description of ethnic slurs and prejudice. The content is possibly mistaken (I'm not qualified to judge), but the writing is innocuous.

You say: ''Do you know what I mean? I'm clear.''

You clearly avoid giving a straight question to the simple question I asked you above: whether or not you claim "Ninguém adds elements to Wikipedia articles merely in order to sell his personal opinions." That evasion, coupled with such childish non sequiturs -- at their most obvious within ''User Ninguém said he has no "proud" of being of "Portuguese ancestry". He should, because Portugal is a nice country and I'm proud of my Portuguese ancestry.'' -- suggests to me that adult discussion is wasted on you. I suppose you'll just continue in your usual fashion until you step too far and are awarded your tenth block. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Opinoso, I am still interested in knowing whether you think I edit Wikipedia with the purpose of making false statements about the relative influence of Portuguese colonists compared to immigrants of other nationalities in Brazilian demographic composition. The examples you gave in your "answer" seem misplaced; most of them are sourced informations, others are removal of unsourced or mis-sourced misinformation. So, do you think I am "obsessed" with Portugal/the Portuguese, or not? Do you think that my edits in Wikipedia reflect such "obsession"? Do you believe that my edits are harmful to the "project" because of that? Ninguém (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Azores Rio Grande do Sul
''Where did he bring the Portuguese from? Nobody knows'' Opinoso

They came from the Azores mainly, Azorean couples were settled in Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Maranhão (border areas) by the Portuguese. A few Southerners of Azorean ancestry: Anita Garibaldi (she married Giuseppe Garibaldi), Getúlio Vargas (former president of Brazil), João Goulart (former president of Brazil), Irineu Evangelista the Baron of Mauá (Azorean grandparents), Érico Veríssimo (famous writer from Rio Grande do Sul) and Luís Carlos Prestes (communist leader). Read about it. There are tons of books about it. Thousands of settlers (couples) were placed in Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. That area was of strategic importance for the Portuguese Crown.

http://www.comunidadesacorianas.org/artigo.php?id_artigo=3&idioma=PT http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/17918 http://www.ivoladislau.com/pesquisas_acoriana_a_vinda_dos_acorianos.htm

Grenzer22 (talk) autosigned, comment added 16:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

Genetics of skin colour
Welcome back, Opinoso.

In Talk:Rio Grande do Sul, you have made this statement:

 * when you mix White with Black and Amerindians, the physical type of the latter two predominate.

I have asked you to point me to some biology textbook that explains it. Can you please do that, since you are back? Ninguém (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Spanish Brazilian
Thanks!

Good luck dealing with him! It's an ... interesting experience. :) SamEV (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

the terrible administrator Hoary
In response to this cri de cœur of yours:

Opinoso, please feel free to move to have me "topic-banned" from south American–related matters. Or at the very least to have me censured for abuse of administrative privileges (or whatever they're called). Really, go ahead. After all, you are, or claim to be, so very certain of my nefarious motivation and its ill effects. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 * This was archived here before any action was taken and indeed before any real discussion had started. I shan't have any qualms about restarting it at any point where doing so seems a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Opinoso, stop making comments of any kind about other editors. You've been both warned and blocked for this many times before. If it happens again, you may be blocked from editing again and the block may not be short. By far the easiest way to keep from being blocked again for personal attacks is to only talk about sources and how to echo them in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why I reverted your last edit in André Rebouças
Hello, my dear and friendly Opinoso. Good to see that you are still alive and romaing around Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your last edit in André Rebouças. Why? Let's see it: 1) His father was a Brazilian born black named Antonio Rebouças, who not only was a close frined of José Bonifácio de Andrada, but who also had a long and prosperous career as a national deputy. Also, and this is one very important info, he was a hero of Brazilian independence in Bahia (and no, I am not surprised that you don't know that). 2) Few Afro-Brazilians known in the 19th century? Do you really want to name a few dozen? 3) You've erased Pedro II from the text. Why?

Anyway, have a good day! --Lecen (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't falsely label others' edits as vandalism, please
Please don't make any other edits like this. A good read of WP:VAND will let you see where you are going wrong. Let me know if you need clarification of this. To be clear, this is an official warning. --John (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

blocked September 2010
You've been blocked many times for personal attacks and edit warring. This post was far beyond the pale. It was not only a straightforward personal attack, but many editors would see this as race baiting. As you've been told before, do not comment on other editors but rather, on sources and how to echo them in article text. This block is not about content or your outlook on the topic area. Neutral, meaningful and reliable sources about this can sometimes be hard to find and agree upon. Lots of folks have sundry outlooks on race, ethnic background and so on. These outlooks stir up all kinds of feelings, which makes the topic area even harder to deal with.

The worry here, as ever, has to do with how you have been going about putting forth your outlook on article content, rather than the content itself. Your behaviour has been harmful to the kind of open editing done through consensus on this website. Please keep in mind, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This means, if need be, an article can even carry sundry outlooks on a topic. You cannot skirt this. You won't get what you want here by making personal attacks. If, when your two week block is up, you make another personal attack, much less one which even hints at race or ethnicity, the next block will be much longer and perhaps of indefinite length.

I also see that you have gone back to calling good faith edits vandalism. You have been told not to do this many times. No good faith edit, even if mistaken and unhelpful, is vandalism. If you do that again, you will be blocked for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks and harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Chico Buarque fala sobre racismo
Ah, sêo Chico... quer dizer então que o problema com o racismo da senhora é que ela não é uma branca "de verdade"?

Agora, deixa eu te explicar, nhô Chico, por que é que tu é branco. É porque tu entra nas boates que eu não entro, porque tu consegue os empregos que eu não consigo. Porque quando tu dirige, ninguém pensa que tu é o motorista ou o ladrão. Porque ninguém te manda pegar o elevador de serviço. Porque a polícia te chama de "dotô" e te deixa passar, e não te manda encostar no muro e levantar os braços.

É isso, sêo Chico, que é ser branco no Brasil. Pode ser que tu não passe no teste do Dr. Mengele, e pode ser que tu não seja branco na Holanda ou nos States. Mas aqui tu é branco, e fazer de conta que não é não ajuda em nada a quem de fato é negro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.18.41.205 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Italianos.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Italianos.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

O que você tem contra os Brasileiros de origem Alemã?
http://www.dw.de/brasil-alem%C3%A3o-comemora-180-anos/a-1274817 "Já o jornalista e historiador Dieter Böhnke, de São Paulo, relativiza essa data, afirmando que os primeiros alemães desembarcaram em 1500, entre eles o cozinheiro de Pedro Álvares de Cabral. Segundo ele, mais de 10% da atual população brasileira tem pelo menos um antepassado alemão. Parece muito, mas é pouco, se comparado aos 43 milhões de norte-americanos (15,2% da população dos EUA) que dizem ter pelo menos um ascendente germânico, formando o maior grupo étnico do país. "No Brasil, esses números são bem menores, mas sem a sua contribuição é impossível entender a história, cultura e identidade brasileira", conclui" Toda hora que alguém coloca o número correto de Brasileros de ascedência alemã (18 milhões), o Sr. logo edita e coloca um número completamente fora da realidade e sem base alguma. Você deveria ser banido da Wikipedia, é só mais um troll. Caso continue com seus atos de vandalismo, darei um jeito de fazer que você suma daqui! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuser777 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge  has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

title: User talk:Opinoso


text:
Talk:Addison Road station

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franconia–Springfield (WMATA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Addison Road station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5081
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831041300/http://transit.schuminweb.com:80/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=G03 to http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=G03

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Addison Road station


text:
Talk:Millsberry

I changed some things
I added the games and descriptions earlier, and to my surprise, they had been changed and sounded like a commercial. I decided to humble the descriptions, and now they tell the truth. I also deleted unnecessary comments about past promotions and special items that you can sell for millsbucks. A final thing I added was a section on the limits of this advergame. These are of special concern, because the addition of some of these could make the game a whole lot more fun. After reading the ad on the cereal box, I was duped into thinking that Millsberry was a town you could explore with citizens you could mingle with. It certainly is not, but it is definitely internet-safe for children under 14, Mills' target audience.

--Ziggymarley01 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Ziggymarley01

Vandalism...getting really annoying guys...
I wish people would stop going to this page and just COMPLETELY ERASING EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO THIS ARTICLE. It is becoming somewhat repetitive, to say nothing of incredibly irritating.

Is there anything we can do to prevent any more of this ridiculous practice?

Thanks.

User:Raylena

Stop Vandalizing the page
People, if you have something against Millsberry, DO NOT type it here. This is about Millsberry, not what you hate about Millsberry. If you want to type bad things, type it in the Sandbox, beacuse that gets cleaned. Vandalism IS WRONG and can get you blocked. Maybe you like "webkinz" but don't say bad things here.

Cmputer 11:42, 15 May 2007 (CST)

NO INFORMATION!
I know that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, or anything like that, but the edit that Deiz (or something like that) really made the article bare. I think that information is needed. Not all, but at least don't practically delete the whole article! Littleghostboo 10:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, to be honest the article still doesn't satisfy Wikipedia standards. Check out WP:WEB for starters. Absent of some reliable independent evidence that this site is notable it may well be nominated for deletion.  Dei z  talk 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
This page was redirected as a result of an AfD closed in favor of merging with the redirect target. However, the topic is no longer covered on the destination page. It was removed in Special:Diff/1043872592 as supposedly "promotional content", with the previous edit also removing a mention of box tops for education, both of which are very culturally relevant. The removed text did not have citations, but according to the AfD there were several citations on the original page at this title. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Millsberry


text:
Talk:Morgan Boulevard station

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franconia–Springfield (WMATA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Morgan Boulevard station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506224147/http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/FY11_Rail_Ridership_By_Station.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/FY11_Rail_Ridership_By_Station.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113082838/http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219003520/http://www.wmata.com/rail/station_detail.cfm?station_id=110 to http://www.wmata.com/rail/station_detail.cfm?station_id=110
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://stationmasters.com/System_Map/MORGANBD/morganbd.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328020004/http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=G04 to http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=G04

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Morgan Boulevard station


text:
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation

The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) is one of the two main social security organization under the Government of India's Ministry of Labour and Employment and is responsible for regulation and management of provident funds in India, the other being Employees' State Insurance. The EPFO administers the retirement plan for employees in India, which comprises the mandatory provident fund, a basic pension scheme and a disability/death insurance scheme. It also manages social security agreements with other countries. International workers are covered under EPFO plans in countries where bilateral agreements have been signed. As of May 2021, 19 such agreements are in place. The EPFO's top decision-making body is the Central Board of Trustees (CBT), a statutory body established by the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions (EPF&MP) Act, 1952. As of 2021, more than ₹15.6 lakh crore (US$209 billion) are under EPFO management.

On 1 October 2014 the Government of India launched a Universal Account Number for employees covered by EPFO to enable Provident Fund number portability.

Origins
The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) holds a pivotal role in India's social security system, dedicated to ensuring the financial security of employees. Operating under the jurisdiction of the Government of India's Ministry of Labour and Employment, the EPFO is entrusted with the regulation and oversight of provident funds in the nation, in conjunction with the Employees' State Insurance. Its establishment dates back to 1951 through the enactment of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions (EPF&MP) Act. The EPFO's responsibilities encompass the management of mandatory provident funds, fundamental pension schemes, disability and death insurance, as well as the facilitation of social security agreements with various international partners.

The first Provident Fund Act, passed in 1925 for regulating the provident funds of some private concerns, was limited in scope. In 1929, the Royal Commission on Labour stressed the need for creating provident funds for industrial workers. In the Indian Labour Conference held in 1948, it was generally agreed that the introduction of a statutory provident fund for industrial workers should be undertaken. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme was launched in 1948. The success of this fund led to demand for its expansion to other industries.

The Constitution of India enacted in 1950 a non-justiciable directive that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity, make effective provisions for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, sickness & disablement and undeserved want. Accordingly, the last months of 1951 witnessed the promulgation of the Employees' Provident Funds Ordinance, which came into effect on 15 November 1951. It was replaced by the Employees' Provident Funds Act, which extended to the whole of India except Jammu & Kashmir. The Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, framed under Section 5 of the Act, was introduced in stages and came into force in its entirety by 1 November 1952. The cement, cigarette, electric, mechanical and general engineering products, iron, steel, paper, and textile industries were affected by the Act. The Acts and Schemes framed under it are administered by the Central Board of Trustees, which consists of representatives of Central and State governments, employers, and employees. The Board administers a contributory provident fund, pension scheme and an insurance scheme for the workforce engaged in the organized sector in India. The board is chaired by the Union Labour Minister of India.

Presently, the following three schemes are in operation under the Act:
 * 1)  Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952
 * 2)  Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976
 * 3)  Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (replacing the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971)

Recent developments
In March 2022, the EPFO lowered the interest rate of 8.10% for the fiscal year of 2021-22.

On 30 August 2022, EPFO proposed to remove the restrictions on the wage ceiling and headcount to allow all formal workers and self-employed to enrol in its retirement saving schemes.

Structure
The EPFO has the role of being the enforcement agency to oversee the implementation of the EPF&MP Act and as a service provider for the covered beneficiaries throughout the country. The Act is administered by the Central Board of Trustees (informally, the CBT), which consists of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, 5 Central Government representatives, 15 State Government representatives, 10 Employees' representatives, 10 Employers' representatives with Central PF Commissioner and the Member Secretary to the Board. The CBT's Executive Committee is chosen from CBT members to assist the Central Board in the discharge of its functions related to administrative matters.

The officials of the organisation in the Cadre of Commissioners are appointed by the Central Board under Section 5D for the efficient administration of the Act and Schemes. To this end, the commissioners of the organisation are vested with vast powers under the statute conferring quasi-judicial authority for the assessment of financial liability on the employer, search and seizure of records, levy of damages, attachment and auction of a defaulter's property, prosecution and arrest and detention of defaulters in civil prison etc.

Administratively, the organisation is divided into zones that are headed by an Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner. At present, there are ten Zones across India. The states have one or more Regional Offices headed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioners (RPFC) (Grade I); the Regional Offices are sub-divided into Sub-Regions headed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioners (Grade II). To assist them are Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners (APFCs) looking after the enforcement of the Act and Schemes. Many district offices have an APFC to implement the scheme and attend to grievances.

The total manpower of the EPFO is at present more than 20,000 including all levels. The 815 Commissioners are recruited directly, competitively, through the Union Public Service Commission of India as well as through promotion from lower ranks. Subordinate Officers (Enforcement Officers/Accounts Officers) are also recruited directly in addition to promotion from the staff cadre of social security assistants.

Universal Account Number
The Universal Account Number (UAN) is a 12-digit number allotted to employees who contribute to an EPF. A UAN is generated for each PF member by the EPFO. The UAN acts as an umbrella for the multiple Member IDs allotted to an individual by different establishments and remains the same throughout the lifetime of an employee. It does not change between jobs. The idea is to link multiple Member Identification Numbers (Member IDs) allotted to a single member under a single UAN. This will help the member to view details of all the Member Identification Numbers (Member ID) linked to it.

The major benefit of the UAN is convenience when tagging multiple Member IDs of a single employee. The UAN helps with transfer and withdrawals of PF claims, online or offline. Along with these services like the Online Pass-Book, SMS services on each deposit of contribution and online KYC updates can be provided based on the UAN, which enables transfer of the balance from one EPF to another.

A new (2018) UAN portal allows members to check EPF balances and UAN status, download a UAN EPF passbook, view a provident fund claim, etc.

Members who are unable to withdraw PF for any reason can withdraw without the consent of the employer. They can submit FORM 19 for EPF (Employees' Provident Fund) and FORM 10C for EPS (Employees' Pension Scheme) to the EPFO office in which their EPF account is maintained.

A UAN provided by EPFO is mainly used to track PF balance and PF claim status.

Employees' Pension Scheme
The Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS) has been controlled by the EPFO since 1995. The main advantage of this scheme is to provide social security to PF members. Under this scheme, employees working in the organized sector can gain pension benefit after reaching age 58. This EPS applies to new and existing members.

The Scheme has been framed by the Central Government in accordance with the powers conferred by section 6A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (EPF and MP) Act, 1952. The EPS-95 came into force on 19.11.1995. Review and revision of schemes is an ongoing process. The provisions of the EPS-95 are reviewed from time to time based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee and the High Empowered Monitoring Committee as well as taking into account the actuarial evaluation of the Employees' Pension Fund. Some of the important amendments made in EPS-95 are:
 * Increase in wage ceiling from ₹6,500 to ₹15,000 per month from 01 Sept 2014.
 * Provision of a minimum pension of ₹1000 per month to the pensioners under EPS, 1995 from 01.09.2014 by providing additional budgetary support wherever the pension was falling short of ₹1000 as per pre-defined formula for calculation of pension.
 * Restoration of normal pension after completion of fifteen years from the date of such commutation, in respect of those members who availed the benefit of commutation of pension under the erstwhile paragraph 12A of the EPS, 1995, on or before 25.09.2008 vide notification G.S.R.132(E) dated 20.02.2020.

Exemption for International Workers
International Workers are exempted if the worker holds passport of the Country with which India has signed a Social Security Agreement and/or member is contributing to a Social Security Program of the Country with whom India has signed a Social Security Agreement.

Currently, India has entered into Social Security Agreement with following countries:

EPF Calculation
Provident Fund is calculated 12% on the basic allowance plus the allowances received by all the employees across the board. The cap on the calculation of basic allowance is Rs. 15,000.00. Further, the basic plus the allowances received by all employees across the board should be considered for calculation of EPF wages, not the gross wages for the calculation of EPF dues.''

Principles laid down for allowances to be excluded

 * 1) Allowances which are variable in nature;
 * 2) Allowances which are linked to any incentive for production resulting in greater output by an employee;  # Allowances which are not paid across the board to all employees in a particular category;
 * 3) Allowance which are paid especially to those who avail the opportunity.

Percentage breakup
PF dues has two contributions. One is employee’s contribution which is to be deducted from employee’s salary / wages and another is employer’s contribution which is to be added by the employer every month. However, employee’s contribution is 12% of the basic wage as per sec.2(b) of the act and employer’s share of contribution is also 12% of the basic wage as per sec.2(b) of the act. In employer contribution of 12%, 8.33% transfer to EPS (Employee Pension Scheme) and 3.67% transfer to EPF (Employee Provident Fund). Over and above, employer has to bear 0.50% as administrative charges on EPF and 0.50% as EDLI (employer’s Deposit linked Insurance) Charges. So employer has to bear total 13% of basic wage as discussed above.

APFC v/s M/s G4S Security Services (India)
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal 9284 Of 2013 stated that the Basic Wage under EPF and MP Act, 1952 can not be equated with Minimum Wage under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Thus, the Minimum Wage can be bifurcated into Basic and HRA; and EPF can only be paid on Basic only.

The Director, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting And Diagnostics, Uppal, Hyderabad v/s The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner-II Compliance, Hyderabad & others
Honourable Telangana High Court vide WP 31702 of 2022 Delivered a Comprehensive Judgement over conducting proceedings under Section 7A of EPF & MP Act. Briefly, Hon'ble HC stated that every Commissioner must strictly comply with the instructions and guidelines stated in Circular by the department dated 14-02-2020, 01-10-2020 and 19-01-2021.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) West Bengal vs Vivekananda Vidamandir And Others
Honourable Supreme Court of India vide above mentioned Case stated that any of the allowances universally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all across the board, such emoluments are basic wages and the employer should consider the same while deducting and remitting the EPF Dues. Hence, any allowance which is paid to every employee categorically will be covered under the purview of EPF.

Civicon Engineering Contracting India Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Board of Trustees & Ors
Honourable Delhi High Court stated that Central Provident Fund Commissioner (‘CPFC’) shall pass immediate practice directions in respect of uploading of all orders which are passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners (RPFCs), Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners (APFC), Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and any other officials/authorities who adjudicate disputes.

Hence, all orders must be made available under section 7A, 7B, 7Q and 14B on the Provident Fund's Website https://eproceedings.epfindia.gov.in by the Department.

title: Employees' Provident Fund Organisation


text:
Petrarca (disambiguation)

Petrarch or Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374) was an Italian scholar, poet, and Renaissance humanist.

Petrarca may also refer to:
 * 12722 Petrarca, a minor planet
 * Petrarca Rugby, an Italian rugby union club
 * A.S. Petrarca Calcio, an Italian football club

People with the surname

 * David Petrarca (born 1965), American director and producer
 * Lorenzo Petrarca (born 1997), Italian motorcycle racer
 * Joseph Petrarca Jr. (born 1961), American politician
 * Joseph Petrarca Sr. (1928–1995), American politician
 * Frank J. Petrarca (1918-1943), U.S. soldier and recipient of the Medal of Honor

title: Petrarca (disambiguation)


text:
Category talk:Wikipedians in Lebanon

?
What exactly are we meant to add to our user page? I tried adding the thing in the box to my one, substituting "User:Palmiro" for "PAGENAME", and something weird happened. So I added just the bit before the pipe, and it worked fine... but what should I really do? Palmiro | Talk, confused in Beirut.
 * Please see the category page.  Buaidh  talk contribs 14:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Wikipedians in Lebanon


text:
Talk:Downtown Largo station

Destination sign edit
Regarding the following text:

which would make sense since all trains, even the older ones, has the destination "LARGO" hard-wired in thier destination signs.

The fact that a "Largo" station existed in drafts, and the present existence of a "LARGO" destination code are unrelated. Destination codes are basically just a predetermined set of instructions designed to get a train to the destination specified, and can be added or changed as needed by Metro. Thus there's nothing hard-wired for destination signs - it's all software. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franconia–Springfield (WMATA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Largo Town Center station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090327180923/http://transit.schuminweb.com:80/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=G05 to http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=G05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Largo Town Center station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113082838/http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://stationmasters.com/System_Map/LARGOTCR/largotcr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Largo Town Center station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130061955/http://www.wmata.com/rail/station_detail.cfm?station_id=109 to http://www.wmata.com/rail/station_detail.cfm?station_id=109

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

CDP stuff
While the lake Arbor, Maryland CDP was defined as Mitchellville, Maryland by the US Census Bureau before 2000, it's not relevant here since the station opened in 2004. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Downtown Largo station


text:
Michael Brunson

Michael John Brunson OBE (born 12 August 1940, in Norwich) is a British broadcasting political journalist of over thirty years' standing. He is a former Political Editor, Diplomatic Editor and Washington Correspondent of Independent Television News, and an occasional ITN newscaster.

Early life
Brunson was born on 12 August 1940 in the city of Norwich in Norfolk. It was in Norfolk that Brunson grew up a in pub and learnt the pub trade.

Education
Brunson was educated at Bedford School, a boarding independent school for boys, in the county town of Bedford in Bedfordshire, and read Theology at The Queen's College at the University of Oxford.

Life and career
Brunson began his broadcasting career at the BBC. He joined ITN in 1968 and in 1971 covered the Bangladesh Liberation War and wrote a testimony about the death, starvation and suffering of refugees in West Bengal.

In 1973, Brunson became ITN Washington Correspondent, where he remained until 1977, covering Watergate and the 1976 US presidential election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. He was ITN Diplomatic Editor from 1978 to 1986, attending every major international summit meeting.

In 1986, Brunson became ITN Political Editor, a role for which he is perhaps best known, and as an occasional ITN newscaster on the-then News at 5:45 and News at Ten.

Brunson retired from ITN in March 2000 after 32 years' service with ITN. Since then, he has regularly appeared as a political commentator on Sky News, GMTV and elsewhere. He was appointed OBE in 2000 and lives in Letheringsett in Norfolk.

Brunson's autobiography, A Ringside Seat, was published in 2000.

Publications

 * A Ringside Seat (Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London, 2000)

title: Michael Brunson


text:
Cairn o' Mount

The Cairn o' Mount or Cairn o' Mounth is a hill in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, rising to 455 m. The B974 road crosses its summit, connecting the Howe of the Mearns with Deeside.

Before the modern A90 road was constructed, the Cairn o' Mount pass served as one of eight major crossing points for those travelling over the Grampians into northern Scotland. The Scottish Tourist Board describes the modern B974 as an "adventurous" road, and it is often impassable due to snow or flooding in winter.

The pass was used by Edward I's army in 1296 when they were en route back to England. It was also used twice by Viscount Dundee's army during the first Jacobite rising of 1689. The route over the pass is probably prehistoric: there is a cairn in the pass that has been dated to approximately 2000 BC. It is possible that this cairn is the one named in the name of the Cairn o' Mount.

title: Cairn o' Mount


text:
Talk:Budgerigar

Psychic Budgie
The section mentioning the psychic budgie predicting its own death is ridiculous. Is it vandalism, or just nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.64.250 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding an External Link
Hi everyone I'm a n00b here at Wiki and was wondering how I could add an External link to the Budgerigar page?

It's a website including all sorts of info about the up-keep and well-being of budgies and also advice on people wanting to buy budgies. I tried to edit the section but received a message saying I had to discuss it on the talk page so..here I am! Thanks :)000malt000 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * What is the name of this site? The reason additions to the external links need to be discussed is that there are a great many legitimate sites about the upkeep and well-being of budgies that don't fit the guidelines for external links. Neitherday (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Its: "http://www.adorablebudgies.co.uk/"...what do you think?000malt000 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * It does not measure up to WP:EL. A large portion of its content comes from this article, so it adds little to what is already here. The original content it does have isn't professionally written nor is it particularly well researched. It doesn't really expand much beyond what is otherwise contained (or could be contained) here.

 * There are many sites of similar and higher quality that have not been included or were removed from the external links section of this article. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of links. External links must add something substantial to the article. Neitherday (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Birds that fly away and come back
What about birds that fly away and come back? It's happened twice with 2 different male budgies. I'd be in the front garden on the phone making arrangements for a new bird and i hear a familiar chirp. I'd follow the sounds and sure enough the little bugger is sitting in a tree at shoulder height. The first time it happened it was raining and i gave up all hope until i heard his chirping in the morning. Jivesucka (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good, I guess. So what you're saying then is that you're disappointed that there isn't a section in this article about the behavior of the birds? Yeah, I'm right there with you! Gingermint (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed title to the green budgerigar picture top right of article
I changed the title of the green budgerigar in the top right of the article. Its description was green opaline budgerigar but it is in fact a green normal budgerigar and not opaline at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazbudgie (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did my undo not take effect?
Someone at some point came in and capitalized the word "budgerigar" all over the place. Budgierigar is not a proper noun, and an anonymous IP post recognizing this removed all the capitalization. Then someone came in and undid that revision, according to his comment using some tool called "MWT" which appears to be an anti-vandalism tool. I believe this undoing was in error, as the preceding article (with capitalization removed) was more correct, so I undid the undo.

In the diff for my edit, you can clearly see that the capitalization was removed. However, the article does not reflect that. I cleared my browser's cache, and the words are still capitalized. I then made another edit on a grammar error in a small section of the article, at the same time manually removing the capitalization. That went through just fine, and "budgerigar" in that section is no longer capitalized. It's still capitalized everywhere else.

So why did my undo not work properly? 209.251.136.45 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Note that the above post, as well as the grammar edit of the main article immediately after my undo-undo revision, was by me. I think I obliterated the cookie when I cleared my cache. Mbarbier (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Budgerigar Bird losing feathers
We have two male birds one is losing feathers around his face, is this a big problem? He is not having any other problems and is eating fine. Is there anyone that has had this happen or know what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.51.221 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

females fight
should i seperate my females to stop them fighting over there young? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.164.56 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so what I hear you saying is that you're disappointed that there isn't a section here on the care of these kind of birds. Yeah, I'm right there with you! Gingermint (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * This is an encyclopaedia, not a guide to keeping budgies. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Diet
This section contains the line

"Chocolate, alcohol, rhubarb leaves and avocado are recognized as highly toxic.[20] [21]"

However, reference 20 includes nothing about these items in all its text so it is not an appropiate reference for the statemet; the reference is irrelevant. Reference 21 is a list posted in a chat room by "Stacey" and is posted totally without support, it lacks even the most miniscule credbility and does not include either chocolate or alcohol, and it does not even come close to being peer reviewed. This is a shabby substitute for published support.

My own bird has consumed alcohol, chocolate, and avocado without any observed ill effects, casting doubt on the statement. It requires better support than provided. At the very least the references shoulod be deleted and lack of citation tagged to it. Radzewicz (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate, avocado and alcohol are indeed toxic to budgies. Anyhow, why would you feed your bird alcohol?! Source: http://www.birdchannel.com/bird-diet-and-health/bird-nutrition/off-limit-food-for-birds.aspx Mariannemarlow (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Parakeet
I undid some revisions by Magsxemail. This user eliminated the list of common alternative names (including "parakeet"), and instead included a very strongly-worded assertion that "parakeet" is incorrect, providing a citation. The citation looks like a pop-ish pet page, with single, almost in-passing mention that budgies are "mistakenly" called parakeets. The user attempted to pass this off as authority on the matter.

I do not consider this even remotely authoritative. Further, the name "parakeet" is largely accepted as a correct, if imprecise, word for the animal. Therefore, I consider the notion that "parakeet" is utterly incorrect to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, which was most certainly not provided. Mbarbier (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

evolutionary history
The evolutionary history section makes no sense to me. Is the group containing the budgie and the lories really the most basal parrot group? How does the budgie "link" two genera? Can somebody clarify this? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of budgie on cage
This photo was first added last August by User:75.67.96.217. It was immediately removed. It has recently been re-added three times by User:132.177.66.126, User:132.177.65.76, and again by User:75.67.96.217. I suspect this may be the same person. The reasons it has been removed each time are below.
 * While this may be a nice snap of someone's Budgerigar, it is not of acceptable quality for this article.
 * It is out of focus, low resolution and badly composed.
 * The bird is harshly lit by a flash. Combined with the fact it is out of focus it renders it pretty featureless.
 * The cage is cut off at the left and the bottom, so it doesn't show that clearly either.
 * An entire third of the picture it taken up with what appears to the room's interior door in the background.
 * It adds nothing informative to the article.

Could any of the above editors please explain why they think this photo is valuable and useful as claimed before re-adding it? Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Does this article need a 'Budgie with toys' image? If so, there are a few possibles on Commons that are of better quality than the aforementioned File:YOSHI.JPG, IMO - e.g.:

 * --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These are all far better.  However, I personally don't see the need.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a wording question.
The following sentence seems unclear to me. Hand feeding is not routinely done with budgerigars, due to their small size, and the fact that young parent raised birds can be readily tamed. Shouldn't it be young parent-raised birds, with a -? Correjon (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely new aspect to the "not keeping a single budgie" argument.
This is purely OR, however, having kept various Aussie parrots including budgies and rosellas for well over forty years, I would like to contribute the following.

Budgies like many other birds are very attractive to various mites and parasites. They clean themselves as best they can, but there's one thing that a single bird cannot do easily, and that is to clean and de-mite its own face. Some birds manage it - they fluff their face feathers then rub their faces in dry dirt.

Budgies have adopted a different strategy. Budgies in a group or in the wild will clean each others faces, a process which I have always known as ALLOPREENING. Interestingly, even budgies in a cage that don't like each other (ie, that fight and screech at each other) will of necessity "call a truce" and do this.

So if you have a single budgie in a cage, you need to be especially vigilant that he/she is mite and parasite free. Not to do so is CRUELTY BY NEGLECT. 58.168.75.123 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The dreaded anthropomorphism has crept into this article.
"... Budgerigars enjoy chewing on anything they can find.".

Budgies, like many other parrots, need to chew frequently to keep those beak muscles in good condition and to prevent the constantly-growing beak from overgrowing. This is evolved survival behaviour. It is not really right to talk about "enjoying". Old_Wombat (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it, along with a few other similar issues. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 * please explain the difference between "evolved survival behaviors" and the ways humans behave, particularly with regard to chewing and perhaps with human enjoyment? 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Development

 * "The appearance of down occurs precisely at the ages (around 9 or 10 days of age) for closed banding of the chicks. Budgerigar's closed band rings must be neither larger or smaller than 4.0 to 4.2 mm."

What does this mean? I can't find "closed banding" or "closed band" defined anywhere. Cousin Ricky (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the band that goes a round the lower leg, usually applied by registered breeders. Soft bands can usually be bought at petshops however. Registered Club Breeders will have their initials, the club, the year and the ring number on the band. Crazy Budgie Lady (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Domestication
For the "domesticated animals" list, to solve a dispute, we've decided that "first list" status (unquestioned true domestication) requires that the source page for the animal have the word "domesticated". If these guys are generally considered domesticated, could someone add a comment to that effect somewhere on the page? Tamtrible (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dictum and Dictionaries
I added two items to 'etymology'. One regarding another aboriginal language reference "Yuwaalaraay" and the other at the bottom of that section, regarding the meaning, ie. "good" and "good bird" vs. "good food" (and even "tasty treat"). I've provided references. That's just for the lead in.

The other thing I did was remove two references in the text saying "This is supported by the XXXXXX Dictionary". This is an egregious misunderstanding of what a dictionary is. A dictionary reports common (or at least some) usage. A dictionary is descriptive, NOT prescriptive. A dictionary should never be promoted as an authoritative source for anything other than reporting what other people have been saying. As a source for reporting usage, it is perfectly acceptable to use one as a reference. But it is by no means proper to attempt to lend credence to a statement by saying a particular dictionary "supports" a statement. This point should be even more apparent when one considers the fact that all dictionaries are produced in-house, and are not subjected to peer review as are most references one would consider valid. Anyone can write a dictionary and present it as a source people will tend to accept as authoritative work. Similarly, anyone can name a dictionary anything they like to emphasize this effect, and rarely will anyone question it. I offer, for example, Webster's New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 8th Edition, written by one guy, and Random House Webster's Computer and Internet Dictionary, 3rd Edition, written by a different guy. No editorial staff, no peer review. But they're both named "Webster's". Why? Because it's a dead guy's name associated with dictionaries, who can't defend himself or his name from being used to lend artificial credence. You have to ask yourself how a guy who died in 1843 could have anything to do with a dictionary of computer terms, much less two different ones. The only time his name can be used with validity is within the trademark of "Mirriam-Webster", and then it is still only a trademark, not a signifier of validity within any of the works produced with that name.

In my opinion this should be applied globally. Descriptive sources that are presented as authoritative should be removed from text as such, although leaving them as a reference for reporting usage should be allowed.

Drmcclainphd (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

budgies are great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.22.137 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Budgerigar. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131022020159/http://now.msn.com/disco-the-parakeet-banters-beatboxes-and-blows-minds to http://now.msn.com/disco-the-parakeet-banters-beatboxes-and-blows-minds

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
The article states that the etymology of budgerigar is uncertain, but the OED is clear about its origin. The word derives from an:

Australian Aboriginal language (‘Port Jackson dialect’, Morris Austral English), < budgeri, boodgeri good + gar cockatoo.

Does the author of that section know something the OED doesn't? Is there some reason to think this is disputed? KC 22:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

KC 22:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

According to Jennifer Ackerman's "The Bird Way," p. 238, "The name is said to come from the native Australian indigenous word betcherrygah---betcherry meaning 'good' and gah meaning 'parakeet.'" [signed Shari Dorantes Hatch] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.235.167 (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Budgerigar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017200317/http://gould.australianmuseum.net.au/naturalist/indigenous2.htm to http://gould.australianmuseum.net.au/naturalist/indigenous2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mimicry
Male specimens of budgerigars are considered to be one of the top five talking champions amongst parrot species, alongside the grey parrot, the amazon and the eclectus parrots, and the ring-necked parakeet. Budgerigars are able to mimic the language patterns of a human, but also able to recognize differences in sounds patterns between interactive and non-interactive conditions. Their ability to recognize patterns in language is similar to a seven year old child due to the similar recognizing skills and rhythmic abilities shared with humans. Dchave28 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Monomorphic
Juveniles and chicks are monomorphic, while adults are told apart by their cere colouring, and their behaviour.

Can we just fix that right there? Young budgies are not monomorphic. They have their own cere colours to dictate gender.

A young male will have a pink or purple cere. Some mutations such as Recessive Pied, Albino/Lutino, Lacewing or Dark Eyed Clear the males will keep the juvinille colouring rather than turn to deep blue like other males.

Young females will have a white or pale blue cere. This is not influenced by mutation. When a hen begins to become hormonal her cere will start to turn brown. This is called Breeding Condition. Once the cycle has ended, the brown sheds off and the cere returns to white and or pale blue.

Even in day old chicks it can be possible to discern between male and female with enough experience.

It's misinformation like this that makes it so much harder to be able to tell the 'internet experts' anything without them throwing 10 misleading articles in your face to prove their point. Crazy Budgie Lady (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

All budgie colours
Please add a new part saying all of the budgie colours. TheIcyTree (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What more do you want beyond what's already in the sentence in the lead saying "Budgies are bred in captivity with colouring of blues, whites, yellows, greys, and even with small crest"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also the link in the See also section to the very detailed Budgerigar colour genetics article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced, challenged material
I started removing unsourced claims that have been challenged for a minimum of six months, but I'm giving up at this point, because there's just too much. If you care about this article, please put effort into finding sources for the challenged materials, otherwise the article is going to become a chopped up mess. Anastrophe (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Started a thread on WP:BIRDS about this. See here. When I have a bit more time, I might see if some of that stuff can be sourced. I know a little about budgerigars and some of the stuff you took out does seem to be correct - just gotta take the time to find some good refs... --Iloveparrots (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. If I had any expertise or even familiarity, I'd have tried doing some sourcing, but I do not, and could potentially screw things up worse. I agree that most of the material sounds perfectly fine, and sometimes cite challenges wind up being destructive, as its not clear if it's only the sentence immediately before the challenge, or the whole paragraph if there are no other cites.
 * I would not be averse to rolling back my removals, as that might help the process move forward...? cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and roll back. Not having the uncited material there with the tags will make it much harder for those who are best able to improve it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with humans section
Why is the first sentence in this section a reference to captive breeding in the 1850s? Especially given the discussion of the etymology above, with one suggestion even being that the name means "good food" (the source referenced points out that they flock to areas that are abundant in food), there is surely some more information out there about the birds' relationship with Aboriginal people. It's not a great look for the article to skip over 60,000 years of potential human relationships, there should be at least a sentence or two before reference to 1850s colonial Australia. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can supply this. 27.33.55.237 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Map
The current distribution map is... pretty awful. The resolution is terrible, but worse is the fact that it shows the entire planet when only Australia is needed. 147.226.192.250 (talk) 147.226.192.250 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Patagonian budgerigar?
a photo in the article currently refers to the bird in the photo as a "Patagonian budgerigar". According to the range map, the bird is not an introduced species anyplace outside Australia. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ecology section of the article mentions a wild, feral population in Florida as the only significant one outside Australia. Florida has a suitable climate. Patagonia doesn't. Fairly extensive Googling on my part has come up with nothing about a Patagonian budgerigar. Geographically it seems highly unlikely. The caption of the pic (two of them actually) in Commons is in Turkish, and translates to "light blue parakeet", not "Patagonian budgerigar". I'm wondering if a breeder somewhere came up with a nice colour and wanted to give it an exotic name? HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Does their beak allow them to eat?
Someone has added the "citation needed" tag to the sentence "These beaks allow the birds to eat plants, fruits, and vegetables." Is it really possible that their beaks prevent them from eating, or is the request for a citation questioning whether these things do constitute their diet? Are budgerigars possibly breatharians? Do they photosynthesise? Do we need a citation for the rather obvious fact that their beaks allow them to eat? 120.22.121.175 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 * It is wrt what their diet consists of. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Etymology of the binomial name
For the meanings of the two parts of the scientific name this article is currently just citing a Greek and a Latin dictionary. It looks a bit like original research. There is no big issue with the obvious Latin word for parrot, but I don't think "melo-" in Greek means "melodious". Generally it would mean black, surely. In any case if it is not obvious our editors should not be guessing. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 * We were taught at high school in Australia that it is Latin for honey meaning "sweet bird" in the sense of sweet sounding. Agree that that is a terrible Greek/Latin mix. 120.153.220.134 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"Naturally, the species is green and yellow "
Well, that is 99% true, but not totally. In the wild, there are only two genes that code for pigmentation. One for all-yellow, the other for blue and white. Occasionally in the wild there is a recessive damaged gene, which is recessive. If the yellow one is damaged, the bird is blue and white. If the blue/white one is damaged, it is all yellow. If both are damaged, the bird is white. To repeat, this is only a tiny percentage, but it does occur in the wild. 120.153.220.134 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source containing that information? That's what we would need to add it to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that it's true - in that every so often a blue budgie (don't know about all yellow) is born in the wild due to there being a fairly common recessive gene in the population. I actually wanted to add that to the article myself a while back, but I was unable to find a source. The Reference Desk couldn't help either. Iloveparrots (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Budgerigar


text: Template:Symbols of the French Republic

title: Template:Symbols of the French Republic