This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I confused as to why you proposed Louis Dalton, Seán McCurtin, Patrick Duffy (Irish politician) for speedy deletion. I assume you are familiar with WP:POLITICIAN. To refresh your memory - "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." All the candidates which you nominated were members of the national legislature of Ireland (specifically Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas), so they are quite clearly notable. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with these and other notability guidelines, as it will save you from wasting your time in future. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In my time..." - well times change and for the better too! So wikipedia can have articles like this and IS the better for it. As for you vile comment well I guess it takes one to know one. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what I wrote that would be considered anyway offensive. You're the one that started with the name calling. Very mature of you. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence merely offered sensible advice, because as soon as you added your speedy delete tag to my notable article, it was removed, hence wasting your time. You appear to have misconstrued my meaning. You also admitted that things had changed since your last outing, so you weren't familiar with the updated guidelines. Then you get all huffy when someone asks you to please familiarise yourself with them. Also, although you are familiar enough with WP:IPAT to know the shortcut, it doesn't have stopped you from engaging in personal attacks and name calling on me. Thanking you! Snappy (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your apology and I apologize for thinking you were a dickhead, and I won't offer you any advice in future. Let's leave it for now. Snappy (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the previous version was clearer and more concise. But what I think is very important that your version does not have any mention of the six-month truce and how it ended. This has been discussed (you can read my argumentation on the talk page) and I thought including the truce (and Hamas' claim that Israel didn't respect its terms) had gained support on the talk page. Offliner (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right I should have used a milder warning for tundra, but your encouraging a user to make disruptive edits and me to revert them suggests we both waste our time, so Thanks! but No Thanks! Your ownership issues on the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict page have got you into fights with what, three or four editors now? Suggest you look at your own tone before pointing fingers. RomaC (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, was it really necessary to undo the edits I made to the introduction? One simply removed unnecesssarily controversial words and the other corrected a point of historical fact. What is the problem with them? -- Noung (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review recent comments you've made on the Israeli operation in Gaza article. There are many personal references instead of content based comments. If you review your comments there and the issue is still unclear, let me know and I'll try and find you a diff or two to further clarify this message.
You added the ninja template (I know it probably has a more technical, boring name). Is there any way of it being only visible to wiki editors signed into their accounts, and not general readers?VRtalk18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I agreed with every word of your "rant" re NonZionist on the naming page. I too feel his purpose at wiki is disruptive (though not intended to be so) and its purpose is not to reach consensus but to push POV. I said as much on his talk page, after looking over just a few of his contribs. Anyway, I did think your rant was right on.Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should work it out by steps, we have a DYK hook that is a surebet, but we should probably begin with GAC. FAC is full of people that enjoy opposing for the silliest stuff (ex. "OMG I does not understand this paragraph!") and I still want to add a few images as seasoning. In any case, I will post the revision shortly and pursue the DYK hook, can you handle the GA nom? - Caribbean~H.Q.16:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not forum shopping. You reverted my edit stating in your edit summary, it was "per discussions". I looked at the discussions and, in fact, a majority of editors did want to include concise casualty counts in the lead. I started a new discussion purely for courtesy. In my count now, in the discussions here and here at least 5 editors RomaC, NonZionist, Fences and Windows, Lapsed Pacifist and Thrylos support inclusion of casualties in the lead. When, I'm added that makes 6. You strongly disagree as do Tundrabuggy and VR but as of now, this is clearly a minority opinion.
Moreover, the last comment by RomaC, on the discussion page, and my current comment there are unanswered, so its not as if the supporters of this viewpoint are avoiding discussion. I suggest you discuss this issue further and garner additional support before reverting me again. best, Jacob2718 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza Massacre
Cerejota, as a neutral editor in-here between us, I'm asking you to notice that my 3 replies to Brewcrewer problems with the term Gazza massacrehave been unchallenged throughout the whole debate. People are just re-phrasing the arguments without challenging my 3 replies, that's because I think the replies are reasonable, and powerful enough to prove that those 3 "problems" are false logic.
I'm asking you, if those replies are still unchallenged, that we clearly end this debate and leave the term as is. Cause I really believe they completely deny the validity of given 3 "problems". Go re-check the replies in the format "Reply to claim 1", "reply to claim 2", ... and I'm sure you'll be convinced. Especially about "Reply 2" and "reply 2.1". --Darwish07 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your tag placements to the article. I went though the entire article and did not find one word that was unsourced. I understand you're not interested in the article being at wikipedia, but there are ways of getting rid of articles. Please don't place irrelevant tags on the article.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)22:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your repeated tagging of the article
You added a whole bunch of tags to the article for the second time without giving any explanation. I asked you to explain the tags but you ignored my question and replaced the tags. So I'm trying again. Let's start with the first tag: Please point to one part of the article that is unsourced. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I responded in his talk page: as he posted this I posted a multi-point explanation. This is precisely why we assume good faith, before saying people are ignoring you (besides a 20 minute window is hardly ignoring :D)--Cerejota (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, you are a fine one to accuse others of "pointyness" as you have me so often lately. Are you following Brewcrewer around and attempting to delete his articles because he has taken a different position from you on an article you have invested much of your time and energy into in recent days? It really looks like you are using wikipedia as a battlefield. I urge you to rethink this tact and get back to productive editing. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received your COI notice on my talk page about Feminine essence theory of transsexuality (which appears twice, for some reason). It would be helpful to me, however, if you could be more specific about what it is that you feel was inappropriate about the article or my edits. Because I have some real-world expertise in this topic and because this topic is extremely controversial, I am very careful to remain aware of COI and the other relevant policies. In fact, with a look, you can see that the great majority of my edits are on the talk pages rather than actual pages of these topics. I carefully re-read WP:COI before creating Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, and I am having trouble seeing where you think I went wrong.
WP:COI says “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.” The article is written well within WP:N, I disclosed my relationship with the person whose work I cited (I did not cite any materials that I published myself), and I alerted the wikiproject in sexology to the page so that any interested editor on the topic could review things such as notability and conformity to other policies. Without a more specific indication, I am having trouble seeing what you found objectionable. (There have been some comments which you might want to read, by other editors, on my talk page, following your notice.) — James Cantor (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, I think that the problem is the potential for your actions to look less "helpfully informative" and more "punitive and intimidating". I see, for example, that you have not posted the same templates at Andrea James's user page (here, or at on the user page of Lynn Conway's personal friend (here), which suggests POV-based bias on your part. You ignored the distinctly biased edits of User:DarlieB, whose occasional work at The Man Who Would Be Queen suggests a complete inability to differentiate from personal POV and information in reliable sources (see, e.g., endless demands that we prove that The New York Times did 'enough' investigation before writing a feature article about the popular reaction to this book). For that matter, why not template all of the editors that are themselves transwomen with passionate personal opinions on the subject? (BTW, if you were to eliminate all transwomen and all people that have ever met any of the people involved in this scandal, the list of non-COI editors is: me. Note that I do not recommend that you discourage participation this way.)
You also identified no actual instances of James Cantor's editing that does not conform with high-quality WP:Reliable sources (e.g., the published scientific literature), and I suspect that while his edits tend to present current scientific ideas instead of the POV held by various political activists, that you won't actually find any actual COI edits -- unless, of course, you believe that having a sexologist edit articles related to sex is inherently a COI problem, in which case perhaps you should suggest to WP:WikiProject Medicine that physicians should be very careful about editing articles related to medicine.
Finally, considering the polarized atmosphere that around these articles, your actions are likely to leave one 'side' wondering exactly what prompted your decision to template a regular editor, e.g, another meatpuppet effort.
In short, if you actually have actual concerns, I think you could have found a friendlier and less suspicious way of presenting them, and if you don't have actual concerns, I think that dumping templates on his user talk page was an inappropriate choice. For the future, perhaps you will find a few minutes to reflect on WP:DNTTR's advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood my main point: James Cantor's professional connection to the subjects were already well-known to every single editor at the relevant pages. Cantor is open about it, and Dick mentions it in approximately 50% of his talk page messages. So what's the point behind templating a person who has been very public about his connection? Do you think this is actually required, to warn all other editors? (If so, then we need to template all the other people listed above, because their COIs are equally trivial to verify.) Or did you simply assume that Dicklyon's AfD posting represented new information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Cantor
Thanks for the recent edits at The Man Who Would Be Queen. While I agree that James Cantor is not notable and agree about your assessment of his opinion, I would argue that his review of that particular book is notable. See my reasons on Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen. The National Academies even revised his blurb in the wake of complaints that it claimed to represent the views of the American Psychological Association. They added his name and noted where it appeared, but left his quotation because it was so positive. Cantor has been trying to downplay his involvement in this controversy because of the questions raised about his conflicts of interest. I avoid making changes to these articles except to correct errors for potential COI reasons myself, so would you consider discussing this here or there? Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, The National Academies revised its blurb because >I< asked them to. I still have the emails. The rest of Jokestress' beliefs about the motivations of other people are the product of her imagination and mind-reading. — James Cantor (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Roof knocking. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoetytalk21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|There is no evidence of edit warring: I did 13 consecutives edits, which are 1RR - without any previous history of editing the page, besides requesting an AfD. I did add some tags, with the accompaning talk page comments. I simply do not see edit warring.}}
I feel a block is not warranted under the circumstances: there is no previous evidence of bad faith editing, contentious editing, even 3RR. AT most, you could have warned me that you saw it as edit warring.
The diffs clearly show there is no edit warring: two of those diffs were for one user's own reversions (is he edit warring for removing the tags twice? if he isn't, then they can be harldy seen as edit warring on my part!). The other was re-inserting to put an explanation for the tagging, which has generated an interestign discussion, of which I am not able to parttake because I have been blocked. I can hardly construe any of this as edit warring, that implies a malicious intent to disrupt, and rather this is an example of boldness, something we are encouraged to be. I ask you to reverse your block, as it was unwarranted. --Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fuurthermore, this is the first time in all my time in wikipedia I have seen someone blocked for inserting tags that describe an ongoing discussion (in the AfD and the talk page of the article. If we do not defend the placement of tags that describe actual discussion, what purpose does tagging serve?--Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I described above, Cerejota continually re added content (tags in this case) that were removed. Also, he was warned above by another user and a user need not violate 3RR to be engaged in a edit war. I am willing to unblock on the grounds that there is no further edit warring over the tag. Tiptoetytalk22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not retag the article myself, but will continue to participate in the editing and talk page as per policy. I honestly have never seen a block over tags before (unless the tags were placed maliciously, by vandals or without relevance - neither three apply in this case), so I didn't see it as warring. You obviously consider them so, so if you want to unblock, rest assured I wont be lame. :D--Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am (of course) aware that there is no need to violate the 3RR to be engaged in an edit war — that was the reason for asking you to explain how you had determined whether Cerejota was edit warring. Also, I'd like to say that I was not aware of the warnings above. Thanks for your explanation. — Aitias//discussion23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user that "warned" me is involved in the editing dispute (this, this), and had previous accused (incorrectly) of 3RR this and removed it from my talk page as a courtesy as evidenced here and here. This a matter for another time, but I highlited it because I think Tiptoety doesn't have all the elements to judge the situation.
If someone can explain to me why putting appropriate tags is a form of edit warring, I will accept that, but this hasn't happened yet. Otherwise, I don't see why I should consider this block as excessive and uncalled for, even if it remains in full force. --Cerejota (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content does not matter, it is they way you go about adding it. Whether it is a tag, or a a edit war over the removal of a sourced content continually reverting is edit warring. Tiptoetytalk00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
As you have agreed to no longer edit war, I see no reason not to assume good faith and unblock your account.
Of course! This is one of the best in the series and really deserves it. You are the best! (Of course, I would go to your talk page, but I am blocked!)--Cerejota (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no knowledge of wiki copyright stuff for images. It seemed to me if an image is on the arab wiki, it can be used in the english wiki?
I'm sure you had a valid reason to delete it, but if u could give me some info on why, i'd really appreciate it.
I responded in your talk page, but for the record, none of the examples you provide support your views, unless you fail to assume good faith. There is a reason essays are there, so people can read them. As to obvious hostility: this post further supports this view. I do apologize for calling a spade, a spade, because probably I shouldn't. But please, please, I ask you, stop focusing on me. Let others do it, preferably others uninvolved in edit disputes with me. --Cerejota (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a problem with your incivility (as you admit), the proper place to bring it up is at your talk page. It would be wrong to mention this on an article's talk page because it is not really related to the article's content. Contradistinctly, your talk page is not the most ideal forum for article content; the proper place is the article's talk page. I also think there's a misconception on your part regarding the WP:CIVIL requirements. I don't have to prove that I am personally offended. Generally acting in a hostile manner is never conducive to collaboration, which is what we do around here. Also, it doesn't matter whether you have personal animosity towards me or you love me. In either case, the WP:CIVIL standard must be met. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that my article on LiveInternet, the Russian blogging service, was deleted. Originally a tag had been placed upon it because there weren't any references describing its notability. I then edited the article and included the references and as a result, the person who placed the tag removed it. Then you put a new tag on it, and now I find that the article has been deleted without me knowing what happened (the process was apparently going on when I was away from of the computer). Can you please give me more details on this? Uvula! (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've added to this new page, and also tagged it with some queries. I am still working on it, and hope to leave it tidy, if still quite brief.
You added that ASBMs are "fitted with a homing head". Do you have a reference for this? It seems likely, as I suggested in my copy, but I was relying on the description of the DF-21. A reference would be very helpful. Thanks.
I'm having a little of an argument with another Wikipedian on an article I wrote. In short: a few people have improved the article after I originally wrote it. On of them made a change I disagreed with, and I undid it. He then accused me of trying to "own" the article. So accused I felt I couldn't undo his change any more. One other Wikipedian has expressed his opinion on the subject already, but I would like to hear your opinion too. I would please look up that page and give us your advice? Debresser (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another request
Hi, I notice you're active on the Gaza conflict article at the moment. Me and another wiki are having an argument over the particular use of a word in the Zeitoun incident? discussion, could we have your opinion? Thankyou :D Superpie (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, you added a section title on the talk page (with my name highlighted) that made it seem like I changed a tag on the article without discussion. No. Fact is, someone else changed the tag that originally I inserted.
If you are willing to change your (to me) offensive section title to let's say "Proper tag", feel free to remove my new section title. Squash Racket (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, assume good faith is still applicable here, along with "let's just try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum." Also, I'm sure you are aware of this, but realize that adding a smiley face when disputing with people doesn't help to calm things down. I really think your last comment at WP:ANI would have been better with a different tone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the mediation you requested for The Man Who Would Be Queen that you did not include user:DarlieB. Although she has not chosen to comment at COI/N or the ArbCom request, she edits the problematic page, and there have been several problems discussed regarding her edits. I believe she should therefore be included (at least, invited) into the mediation. — James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your software development interests?
Cerejota, I've noticed from your user boxes that you're a programmer!. What's your interests in the field? Mine are operating systems and networking stacks programming. you?
Cerejota, I think the article has taken siginifigant steps backwards since I've been on a short wikibreak (traveling). I'd like some help in putting a sembelance of balance back in the article. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion
It may help to ring in contributions if you put a header at the top of your talk page, with a link, and calling for contributions there. As it is it is hard to notice, and hard to find. Perhaps it's already there, in which case, I'm a bit of a dickhead. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tundrabuggy and doright continue to remove "Gaza Massacre" from the lead. I do not want to get in an edit war, so I wanted to ask you what would the process be to get this removal without consensus to stop. Nableezy (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a new section on my talk page entitled Editors' comments regarding the Gaza Massacre in the lead" here [1] In it I have listed a few comments by those who have argued against inclusion of such a term in the lead. (at least some of whom actually deleted or changed it in the article) I feel confident that I did not include everyone. For example, I was unable to find a comment on this by user:The Squicks, but I would be very much surprised to find him in your camp on this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might lighten the mood of some and at the same time offend others. I think it would be better to take the image off the talk page, now or at least a little bit later. I leave it up to you now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Licensing is irrelevant for content, you really has to study copyright law: the copyright holder has released the videos from which the image comes under a free license, no questions about it. You can argue other reasons for non-inclusion, but lack of free license is not one of them. Sorry, but you are wrong. .--Cerejota (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an involved discussion about the photo's credentials here that actually lead to the issue being raised at Jimbo's page. Definitely an interesting issue, whether there should be a sliding scale policy on the verifyability of picture that relate to ongoing events. The video that shows the same child in the hospital was what sealed the deal for me. But then, I suppose you might question that source as well.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy
You know, if you remove a thread but don't archive it, you really might want to consider using the summary "Rm thread" rather than "archive".
Please let me know that my efforts have not been in vain, and that you now understand that A7 is for articles which do not even claim notability, and not for articles that do claim notability, but that you think are not notable. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I began noticing it last year. The problem is not only that they push their POV, but that they aren't afraid to create widespread drama by edit-warring. By the way, ever heard of this guy? He has been one hell of a P.I.T.A. recently. - Caribbean~H.Q.00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Could you please have a look at this talk page? I would like to know if there is any policy or -more likely- guideline on how to properly deal with 'lists of examples'. I also posted the question in more general termes on a help page. I'll look for your answer here or on the help page. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can sometimes be brash an one sided, but you did an amazing job in summarizing very fairly a very complex discussion. That takes guts and a real ability to see through your own position into the other side. I just wish in discussion you used the same ability, because you can be harsh (I have a thick skin for intelligent harshness, not for childish trolling, but others might not). Anyways, I was mighty impressed. Seriously. --Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I normally consider your analysis of my edits worthless, I am grateful for your back-handed compliment. That takes guts and real ability to say something positive to someone with whom you disagree and whom you frequently misinterpret. I just wish in discussion you used the same ability, because you can be surprisingly insolent despite the fact that you yourself frequently make questionable comments in the hope that people will take them lightly. Anyways, I was mighty impressed. Seriously. -- tariqabjotu02:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 Israel–Gaza Foreign involvement
Sorry, let me clarify my wording - I think we're on the same page here. This topic could definitely be presented neutrally if it did warrant its own article, but the intent of this article was bad to begin with, so the article (i.e. its existence) can't be neutral because it's a POV fork. Graymornings(talk)09:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background
With all the forking off that has been done, it is difficult to find a page that actually deals comprehensively, if at all, with the historical background of the war. I've dropped a note re Mearsheimer's article on one of the 'background' pages linked to the main article, but aren't sure if this is the place where we can now begin to construct, with scholarly sources, the various in-depth academic and specialist perspectives on the background to the Gaza war. Which is the best page for this? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is a by now fairly comprehensive scholarly documentation on the 2001-2007 siege of Gaza, which was intensified from the time Hamas won the muncipal elections. Tanya Reinhart gives a detailed exposition from a pro-Palestinian position, though she was an Israeli academic. To do this justice would require more than a mere background section in articles denominated 2007-2008 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gaza has quite a specific history that cannot be confused with the West Bank, which supplies the major narrative so far. So, as I understand it, the various projects appear to exclude, structurally, anything more than a paragraph for the events 2001-2007, though there is, if I recall, an article on Israel's unilateral disengagement in 2005
As you see, to me most solutions proposed are rather untidy, though I'd be the first to support the conflation of 2008 with 2007. I'll wait and see how things develop, then. Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find your milhist page. This may be of use (eliding the rhetoric) for the moment, and you can shift it there. Better sources will naturally be forthcoming, but the author is a military analyst, even if he posted this on a site that is liable to challenge as not fitting RS criteria.
The GBU-39 guided bomb is perhaps the most egregious case point illustrating how our aid directly helps Israel to wage aggressive war regardless of American interests. After the disastrous Israeli attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, the Pentagon pushed for and Congress approved the transfer of thousands of precision bombs to replenish Israel's stocks in August and September 2007. The GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb was not included in this gift. But then, more recently, and for no apparent reason, four months before its assault on Gaza, the Pentagon first notified Congress of the GBU-39 transfer in August 2008. Congress was in recess during August, but transfer of GBU-39s to Israel was one of the first items it disposed of in after reconvening in September, in dutiful obedience to the demands of the Israel Lobby and its wholly owned subsidiaries in the Pentagon. These weapons and their delivery racks were then rushed to Israel, and in less that 3 months from the time of Congressional approval, 1000 GBU-39s were cleared aerodynamically for release from Israel's planes and placed in the operational inventory, just in time for Israel's attack on the Gaza Ghetto. The GBU-39 is one of the most modern weapons in the American inventory. Last September, the GBU-39s were trumpeted by the Israeli press as bunker busters of choice for an attack on Iran. But that claim was preposterous and most likely deliberate misinformation, given that we now know the Israelis had been planning the assault on the Gaza Ghetto for at least three months. It was preposterous because GBU-39 has a tiny warhead (only 50lbs encased in a 280 lb bomb). Its small size and (theoretical) high accuracy, however, makes the GBU-39 a far more appropriate as a weapon of choice for assassinating individuals and small groups in densely populated urban areas, like Gaza, than for taking out deeply-buried nuclear components in Iran.' Chuck Spinney, ‘Hosing Obama Israeli Style', Counterpunch 20/01/2009
the list has been redirected to the Military SF article and I started a list with references (although I wouldn't consider some of the books MSF, but whatever...) at eLib, so as to step on nobody's toes. I will copy the finished and agreed upon list afterwards as the basis for the new article... complicated, life at wikipedia. You could add them at elib first, if you want... Military SF Bibliography Cheers, --Gego (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? No one reasonable can interpret what I did as uncivil, insulting or condescending. You, however, are being needlessly rude and uncivil, indeed. --Cerejota (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now I am not reasonable? Forgetting your personal attack (unlike me who commented on your edits and attacks), your post on my talk page was clearly insulting, uncivil, condescending, and inflammatory. 1. I used the lowest level template after asking Goldsztajn to stop changing my edits. I thought this was more prudent and friendly than using a higher level seeing as I had already made personal requests to him that were unfruitful. Your accusation that I tried to escalate the matter assumes bad faith and is insulting (and misrepresents the chain of events). 2. Your reading of the policy is incorrect, as it clearly states, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission."(emphasis in original). You gave me a bad interpretation of the policy and then asked me to apologize someone who treated me so poorly in a public manner.
You were uncivil in making a completely inappropriate warning on my talk page. You were condescending in your explanation of basic Wikipedia policies to a longtime editor who has been using and interpreting the policies correctly. You were insulting in the way you completely ignored the history of the dispute with Goldsztajm and then requested that I apologize to him (despite the fact that I had apologized for using a shortened name, but he still acted uncivilly and never apologized for his actions).
I do not wish to continue this conversation with you at all. The dispute with Goldszrajn was already over for a couple of days, yet you felt the need to revive it. I do not. Don't worry, when we work together on future articles, of course, I will treat you with more civility and respect than you have treated me.LedRush (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some work on an article about David Weber. Somebody just made a major edit to the article, removing links to excerpts and online versions of the books in the list of published works. I was not the one who put those in, by the way. Would you please have a look here and enlighten me (and possibly others as well) with your opinion.
And while you're at it, there is a difference of opinion between myself and an other Wikipedian, whose input I have come to value very much, on the use of the words "popular and enduring character" in the article. That discussion runs through the two preceding sections on that talk page. Perhaps you could say something about that too?
I feel that that Wikipedian I mentioned before (Marc Kupper) is really getting on my nerves, by undoing my edits claiming that they are not or pourly sourced. Would you tell me if I am right here in my feeling, or perhaps wrong? Debresser (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota, I appreciate you're aware of these restrictions, however, just to confirm:
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
Hi Cerejota, the article that you recently renamed to the title above has been nominated for deletion by user:yamanam. There aren't many people in the discussion, and I thought you might like to contribute your input. I really don't know what you'll say, but you couldn't possibly lower the level of discussion there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for copy-paste accident
Untwirl noticed that somehow "cerejoGaza" get into my commit into talk page. It was not my intention. I fixed it and I'm really sorry, it was honest copy-paste accident. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
np--Cerejota (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, I think that events are described in Unilateral ceasefires second paragraph, relevant quote: Gaza medical sources reported civilians killed.. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Wikipedia states as a fact that "Israeli army said they shot the farmer", quoting in my view in this particular case Hamas source - Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein. Though I have to agree that Xinhua generally is reliable source. Does it make any sense? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read your mediation statement with interest, and wondered whether you have read WP:COI recently? It seems to carefully avoid the idea that the only conflict of interest is the financial one. In particular, WP:COI names:
close personal/professional relationships (affecting James Cantor, Dick Lyon, and Andrea James on several articles)
activism/campaigning (affecting Andrea James on nearly all of the disputed articles) and
legal conflicts (possibly affecting Andrea James, who filed legal complaints against Michael Bailey).
as COI issues.
Additionally, it appears that part of one of Andrea James's businesses is promoting the activist POV, so even looking at solely financial/professional conflicts, COI is a concern for this editor.
But I'm not at all sure that James Cantor has a financial COI for articles about sexuality. For the organization that employs him, probably. For individuals that he knows well, yes. But for articles on the subject -- probably not. At least, that's how I interpret WP:COI's statement, "However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." (BTW, Cantor's research area seems to be pedophilia, not transsexuality.)
To give a less-fraught example: My husband has his CCIE in network security. Don't you think that he's exactly the kind of person that Wikipedia would like to have writing articles about subnetting (one of his favorite topics) -- even though he's paid to work in that field? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article does make clear how she meets notability as it says in there that she was elected to the Spanish Parliament as an MP therefore she automatically meets notability for people per WP:POLITICIAN which states : "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" Valenciano (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain on the talk page what you think needs cleaning up, as the article seems in good shape to me, apart from just the list of artists. Ty10:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still stumped. I'm not exactly a newbie and am familiar with those guidelines, but I don't see what you want cleaning up. The lead provides a concise summary of the main points that are in the article. It could possibly do with a little more detail, but it's about right for the length of the article. Headings? They seem reasonable enough to me and hardly out of the ordinary. The list of artists I have mentioned above, and I'm not quite sure how to deal with that. Lists aren't my speciality. The other list of "Exhibitions and performances" is formatted OK. Please enlighten. It would help if you post on the article talk page for the benefit of any other editors involved with the page. I'm copying this thread there. Ty05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, after studying the situation from every point of view, I have come to a conclusion in regard to the infox discussion which I believe may be a just one. Please check it out and express if you agree. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cerejota, I am not going to put up with the "user's" nonsense anymore. I would appreciate if you could give a last comment on the issue before I bring the issue to an end. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize for my actions during the Puerto Rican Campaign situation. My intentions were to act as mediator and instead became frustrated with Durero. I would be totally unfair if I do not give credit to his valid observations. Even though we at times got off the main topic which was the contents of the inbox, I believe that the final addition (caption) to the infobox is justifable and will help clear any misunderstandings. By Durero pointing this out in the first place, I think we will be able to aviod future edit warring on this particular topic in the future. Gracias a todos, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave proper edit summaries that explain what has been done in the edit. "Not needed", "actually", "better" and "move", as you have put in edit summaries for Stella Vine, are not at all helpful for other editors See Help:Edit summary for more information. Ty12:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, they are self-explaining with the diffs or previous edits. You might disagree with them, but they are self-explanatory. In particular "move" is very clear, once the content is restored. "better" is only used after a previous edit, and refers to a better (from my perspective) edit. --Cerejota (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You left some broken references
On 08:46, 8 February 2009 you made an addition to the article International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. You added to the section about "Antisemitic incidents". Apparently you copied that from somewhere else, because there are two references that refer to names that do not appear in this article. They are "name=TO/" and "name=AJC/". If you could please add the complete references (or leave me a note where to fetch them). Debresser (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One ref I found right away. The other one was a long story of deletion and restoring, and initially copied from a third article. Now I've got them all. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed his attempt with the unblock template - but I will allow another administrator to look at the request - as I was the blocking admin there. Thanks for the notice, Cirt (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jot of info re Milhist. Can't find your subpage, so I've put it here.
"Hezbollah and the Syrian army are not Hamas," a senior IAF officer said. "We cannot assume that things will be the same in a bigger war."
During Operation Cast Lead the IAF implemented a number of changes that it learned from the Second Lebanon War in 2006. For instance, an air force liaison officer was assigned to every battalion and brigade. Liaisons coordinated evacuation of soldiers and strikes on targets on the ground. Also, every brigade was given an attack helicopter squadron capable of striking targets identified by troops on the ground.
Over 1,000 Hellfire and Orev missiles were fired by Israeli helicopters during the operation. An order to use only laser-guided weapons was given to minimize collateral damage. IAF sources stated that as a result, most incidents of friendly fire were not caused by their own force, but rather by tank or other fire.
Still, IAF officers insisted there was a shortage of helicopters. Cobras that had been grounded for six months due to an accident in which two airmen were killed were rushed back into action.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove your comment? Cryptonio improperly removed my comment and his own, presumably because they embarrassed him. I restored the comments he removed, but not yours. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that the ICRC was not a RS, but that it could be/was seen/ by some as biased. Perhaps Schussel's blog was not the best source in the world, I was merely illustrating the point. It was used on a talk page, not the article, and the information is certainly verifiable, and I noted that (some) of the information was on wiki as well. Their WWII behavior is not forgotten by everybody, and in fact they just recently apologized for it. There are a number of other reasons that some believe it is biased as well, including the unwillingness of the RC to accept the
"Red" Magen David for many years, yet accepting the Muslim Crescent. There is also the issue of Jewish prisoners and kidnap victims, ie the fact that Israel permits ICRC to see Palestinian prisoners yet doesn't require Hamas or Hezbollah to allow them to see their Israeli prisoners. The American Red Cross also boycotted the ICRC for some time because of its refusal to allow Israel in with the Magen David. There are other specific concerns with the ICRC, but I do not intend to document them all, because as I said I am not contesting them as a RS. But to suggest that this is a "fringe" view is laughable. Most human beings know nothing at all about the ICRC, but of those that do, there is a sizeable minority who hold these concerns. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am well acquainted with this history, and the debate around it, as I am with the holocaust denialism. The USA was very much an accomplice of the Red Cross issues during WWII, as pointed out in the Nizkor Reuters article. That is even a topic covered in the ICRC article.
The view on the Holocaust and the ICRC is in fact fact part of mainstream history, and a tragic chapter on the meaning of neutrality in international humanitarian law - and has given birth to concepts such as "responsibility to protect". It has also been profusely apologized for. Less generalized, but still generally accepted, has been the issues around Switzerland and the Nazis. However, these are the stuff of history. I can see why you as an activist can feel compelled to raise these issues. But they are irrelevant when they come to evaluate the validity of a source for an event today.
This are still issues that do not detract from the reliability of the ICRC as a source of information, unless there is clear evidence that in this case they are misrepresenting information. You see, pretty much every publication and organization we can consider reliable sources has as some point or even currently be subjected to controversy on the part of a "sizeable minority". Not because of this do we stop holding them as reliable sources. The New York Times, decried in even "mainstream" blogs like Wonkette as the "Jew York Times", is a reliable source. IBM, whose technology enabled the efficient organization of the Holocaust, is considered a reliable source in technology articles about itself. Etcetera. Iffiness of action doesn't mean lack of reliability as a source, it means qualification as a source. Otherwise, none of the sources we use could be considered reliable: every publication mentioned explicitly in WP:RS has had to retract, fire journalists, and been engaged in partisan political debate as to their lines. Yet we consider them reliable sources. Why? Becuase its irrlevant than they have, as in general these are the exceptions and not the rules.
This was clearly explained to us Jimbo when he spoke about Al Jazeera: a reliable source is reliable if we can verify its information as reliable, and we do this by verifying their standards. Thats the part before and after the part you bolded. Reliability is not like notability, a black and white criteria. It is a gradient that changes with context.
The ICRC is considered a reliable source in terms of casualties and other such information because it is seen not only as neutral, but as interested in correct reporting of casualties, in part because thats what they do. I will tell you something tho - if the Israeli goverment directly and with evidence questions the ICRC as a reliable source, thats another deal. But a few books from non-notables, and a bunch of partisan blogs do not evidence make. Certainly, the ICRC is a much more reliable source, in abstract, than any of those you have cited.
Interestingly enough, the "greatest tragedy" in the history of the ICRC was probably commited by Chechen muslims: The ICRC hospital of Novye Atagi (not a good article by any means, but the lack of sources is lazyness, not lack of verification). The ICRC takes flack from all sides of pretty much very modern conflcit it is present at, which tends to support its claim of neutrality, rather than diminish it. --Cerejota (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an activist, that is your characterisation. * Again, I was not denying that it was a RS but that it was/is considered biased by many who are one side of that conflict.
Jimbo Wales did not say that we had to verify Al-Jazeera as a RS, he said to concern ourselves with what the information was being used for and since when it comes to text we may not know the facts surrounding the caveats he gave (ie who is reporting), he said 'not to go beyond the facts.' Therefore, it is a good idea to also get the information from another RS. After all, if something is notable (and factual) it ought to be on more than one source. He also said that it was possible to use AJ photos as propaganda for one side. The same is true for text, obviously.
As for the "Jew York Times," people may call it that, however most supporters of Israel do not consider that it supports Israel in the slightest, on the contrary. So the "Jew York Times" concept has more to do with Jews than Israel. I said in my initial posting that it was not the world's greatest source and I was not trying to add it to the article. Many people may not be aware of ICRC's history, and the fact that not everyone on one side of this conflict finds them such a RS -- in fact many find them biased. Ditto and even more so for HRW & AI. Those are facts that all the yammering in the world will not make them disappear. We will doubtless end up using them in the article since RS quote from them, but that doesn't detract from what I am saying, and it is only fair that editors who use these sources are aware of the thinking on both sides of the fence. That they dismiss it is their perogative. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are not an activist. How should I describe you then? Neutral you are not. Disinterested you are not. Constant war-like opposition to whatever editors of the other side do is activism. I call spades, spades. You are generally civil, and I learn a lot of stuff I didn't know existed, but thats about it.
As to the argument you make here, certainly it is not the argument you made in the talk page of the article. You clearly questioned the reliability of it as source. I am all for extra verifiability in controversial articles. It makes for ugly footnoting but a better article. If that's your concern, then suggest we add equaly or more reliable sources that say the same thing. Or if there is a difference between the two, then constrast them. But do not question the reliability, because it is reliable. That "many" find them biased is irrelevant, so do "many" who find Magen David Adom unreliable and we use it, sometimes as a single source. Just because a source doesn't say what you want it to say do we have to remove it: it depends on the context. Or the inverse is true, just because a RS says it doesn't mean we have to quote it. Quite frankly, I believe you very capable of civil discourse, but uncapable of ever writing a single line of text that while verified, doesn't fit your preconcieved notions of a given topic. Prove me wrong.
I seldom like to intepret Jimbo or give him undue weight. He clearly re-stated what WP:RS, nothing earth shaking, and your constant (mis)use of him is unamusing. We are requiered to do that of all sources, its called verification. --Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cerejota accusing editors of "taking marching orders" from CAMERA (redux)
Damn it! I missed out on the fun. Apologies, I would have chimed in with an enormously helpful 'this is silly' comment which would of course have settled the matter instantly.... Sean.hoyland - talk07:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would consider it necessary to insult another user at an RfC that has nothing to do with that user? [4] Please try to stay on topic without accusing another user of "usually being off-base" and not assuming good faith. Please try to stay on content and not focus on other users. Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tundra, I copied and pasted what he said about himself, in jest, and so did I, in jest, as marked by the smiley, re-read the tread. You really got to lighten up. Really. And I am not accusing him of not assuming good faith, I am saying that the rationale is - which is obvious by the intervention. Its funny, really, how you are so preoccupied with alleged misbehavior, instead of actually having interesting discussions, like the other thread. In particular around things we probably agree more than disagree, like ArbCom reform. --Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I really like your pro-Wikipedia position in the latest debates; having no agenda and doing small edits here and there that adds a lot to the article readability and professionalism. Please accept this little barnstar ;):
OK. I'll sign my posts. Actually my Signature is a bit lengthy. It may create difficulty while editing. I'll use my default signature temporarily. Lots of issues. We'll do it. Kensplanet (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Puerto Ricans to include ancestry, good! We have a minor situation. One of the main sources in the "Black history of Puerto Rico" ref.#7, is no longer in the net and is a dead link. I think that Jmundo fixed it. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I meant it lol. I personally agree with the neutrality tag and feel that it is necessary, but from my perspective it would take a miracle for a consensus to be reached. Although I think there are far more important issues within the article which is clearly the underlying issue of the whole dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about using {{article issues}} with the 4 or 5 options that apply?
On "miracle for a consensus to be reached", well in particular if you and Nablezzy continue your courtship (he-he) in the talk page. I think you guys should call a truce, and refrain from addressing each other directly - rest assured, people form either his side or your will reply. While highly entretaining at times, it does tend to raise the room temperature... uknowhatimean? --Cerejota (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he tends to follow me around wherever I go. I've done my best to avoid user-to-user discussions but it's practically impossible now considering our past feuds. I'm probably soapboxing anyways LOL. But I'm not lying about the following part, he recently decided to chime in on my noticeboard discussion. How thoughtful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer does the same thing to me, and I usually don't get my undies all up in a bunch (except when he goes bully on me - it activates in me very primal insticts that led to me being in detention almost every other week in junior high for beating bullies up for messing with my computer club buddies).
Yes, you guys are all very interested editors with very opposed POVs. The issue is that you both keep on bullying each other (and wikifan, I say this with all due respect, you have also in the past gone after me). Its a chicken and egg issue - so who started it is irrelevant. But whoever stops it, and stops it even in the face of continued misbehavior is the one that gets the credit. This has to stop, and we have to reach consensus. We are smart people, so we should be able to find a way, however long it takes. And one way to start on that road is to de-escalate, to WP:AGF and to WP:CHILL: if people do crap, revert them, if they continue to do crap, go to WP:DR. But if there is a lesson to be learned is that wikipedia will not let narrative wars get in the way on writting an encyclopedia: it has time and again gone against narrative pushers - be it in IP/AI or in abortion or Evolution v Intelligent Design or any of the major controversies. We all need thicker skins, and a more focused approach. And probably talk more and shout less. ;) --Cerejota (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the difference between me and Nableezy is that I try to avoid editing as much as possible. When I see Nableezy POV-pushing, I don't make talk sections like "The Case against Nableezy." I make one lousy revert and there is a 15 paragraph discussion about why I'm the source of all our problems. totally fucked up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and empathize. And while you don't jump, but others do - the first recorded instance of a username in a section was my name. You see my point. I agree with you that section was not needed, but at the same time, more discussion is needed - TLDR doesn't apply here, because the more we leave unsaid, the more people fill in the blanks with their preconceived notions.
The fact is the biggest problem is the "us v them" mentality: it makes one automatically oppose whatever one editor makes, and support whatever another editor makes. This is the root cause of our problems, and all sides are guilty - and this has included me at times. When we do this, we lose all credibility. In fact, there is stuff in the article that I do not agree with, but it seems every RS does, so fuck it, include it - if we all adopted this criteria the problems would go up in smoke. All we would have is interesting debates around around wording and the reliability of sources - instead of heavily personalized behavorial issues (and mind you - I am engaged on that too). All it would take for this to happen is for someone to step up and be the Rabin of this peace process.--Cerejota (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah but I doubt the situation will change. Save from everyone whose been deemed POV-pushing or collective doing so (i.e, Darwish, Nab, untirl basically high-fiving each other) then the situation will continue. The article is so big and bloated it's hard to police it, and when it is people bitch and that takes up another 100kb of space. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
babycue
I dont want to put this on the article talk, not really relevant to the article, but my problem with 'babycue' is that it is a play on words, aka a type of joke, about something that I personally would rather not see joked about. I am probably being over sensitive about this, which is why I havent said anything before, but the picture is about something serious and does bring out pretty strong emotions, so seeing it being dealt with so lightly can be a lil hard. Nothing personal, I have seen you try to diffuse other problems with humor, but this one just bothers me. I wont bring it up again, but you asked why I didnt want to use that term so I thought Id let you know. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you, and if brevity is what you are looking for I think 'ISM baby pic' would work and people will know what you are referring to. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the line 'I call a spade a spade it just is what it is' was from a 2pac song, 'Wonder Why They Call U (expletive removed)' that Jay-Z used later. Nobody else answered it, but I think we should follow Jeopardy rules and say you are currently at -5 pretend dollars. But there is a chance for redemption, 10 pretend dollars will be awarded if you can name the artist who gave us this gem: "Chicago aint a city its a nation" (was going to use that in the density discussion when trying to compare Gaza to Chicago). Nableezy (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my response. This is misuse of process after a recent DRV, but since chances are this will be allowed to run its course, I also added a reasoning for strong keep.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias
Thank you for nominating "Black history of Puerto Rico" for "FAC". It was one the aticles which I most enjoyed writing. I learned so much while writing it. Have you taken a look at the "talk" page? There is this person who calls himslef "Portoricansis" who has dedicated himself to creating political controversies in the "Puerto Rican cuisine" and "Puerto Rico" articles and is now doing the same in this article. Check out his ridiculous questioning of the articles "GA" status. I just hope that he does not provide a negative influence in the articles nom. Incredible. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me leeiste la mente... I just left a message there, including a link to the readability analysis. The most worrying part of the thread, which I didn't address, is the racist flavor they had. It really me dejo un saborcito malo en la boca... This guy must be brough under control, all he does is vandalize and troll, and you have been giving him so many chances is not funny. --Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Portoricenssis isn't racist, he just spreads pro-anexionism propaganda blindly, the exact opposite of ultra-separatist Wiki En Wiki. Now, don't be confused by my statement, this guy is a P.I.T.A. that will go out of his way to push his POV. He is already running on a final warning, so if he goes ahead with any disruption, just leave me a message and I will gladly put an end to his run. - Caribbean~H.Q.19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put a last warning in his talk page, to make things clear. I also linked appropriate policies - he should have the chance to understand the reasoning for any action. And yeah Wiki En Wiki was infamous.--Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet you my house that he will continue, getting his behind blocked in the process. The only reason that I spared him this time was because his ridiculous comment, actually made me laugh. Un burro hablando de orejas? Hilarious! Anyway, if he is blocked, I will gladly begin a consensus to have him banned as well. - Caribbean~H.Q.20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, uninvolved admins seem to agree an RfC might be in order, due to the long-time pattern of disruption. Its sad really, cause he has done some good contributions. But sometimes these type of things force people to reflect and comeback as better editors.--Cerejota (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm done being lenient, this guy will get a full indef block the next time. Several users (me included) tried talking to him and failed, he just went ahead, ignored consensus and declared Puerto Rican cuisine "his" article. Outside of the constant POV-pushing and trolling, he was already blocked by Tony for posting a direct off-wiki threat towards him and he just issued one against me. If I was trigger-happy, he would be blocked just for that, but curse my merciful nature. Altough, I don't see this ending here, the socks will soon follow... - Caribbean~H.Q.20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You got my back, by what is worth. Remember I am involved in editing the WP:ARBPIA topics, which are a chock full of these type of things: this is pedestrian by comparison, if you will ;). I admire your patience, because it just makes trusting your judgment so much easier.--Cerejota (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you are a brave one, I wouldn't touch that conflict with a 10-ft pole. My pin has been in there for two years, I might take a look at the "official" one once I update, which will probably not be soon, I still need to list my latest GAs there. - Caribbean~H.Q.21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, here I thought that I was inventing something ;). As to the WP:ARBPIA, its a dirty job, but someone is got to do it... its full of POV-pushing, meat/sockpupettry, uncivility etc. I feel I come out stronger out of it, because I would have been to hell and back. Its a good school. Thats why this guy doesn't faze me, he is an amateur. I have been up to the Big Bad Wolves, and come out with barely a scratch :P--Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, he can't hold a candle to Wiki En Wiki, that guy actually managed to establish a few alternate accounts. Before I caught him, that is. - Caribbean~H.Q.22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, I really care about my view by other editors I deeply respect. Wikifan has several times claimed that my edit that he reverted removed the IDF statement. This is wrong, and it never happened. I never do such behavior. Please check the edits by yourself, it just purely added the UN statement. Wikifan has several times repeated such wrong claim to make it appear as the truth; I urge you to see the edits by yourself before doing judgments. Thanks! --Darwish (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darwish, I know this to be the case. And this is trivial to verify using tools. I think this might be a mistake of history following... Some wiseman said that these here wikipedia is the mix of our idiocies ;). So, identify idiocy, and handle it appropiately, come from whoever it comes: first deal with the attribution issues in the talk page of the user (in this case, wikifan), then with the debate around additions in the article page. Somethign that always serves right is to find the diff of whoever actually removed the IDF figures.
I do not care who removed the material, I think it belongs, thats my sole point. We really need to start depersonalizing this stuff, except when it is really personal. I think you are usually very good with your edits, and a lot of the uncontroversial material comes from you, editors from all sides should recognize this. Just don't mirror the behavior that isolates and identifies editors, unless they are being really disruptive. --Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Darwish gets a free pass because he's made "good edits" before? Let's see, he wrote 2 show-trial sections basically complaining about my edits/reverts which have been proven to be of little importance and/or unnecessary, or the result of refusing to honor good-faith policy. He's followed me to various talk discussions, I think he may be in my noticeboard one..oh, and he groups up with Nab, Unt, and all else he "identifies" with while he makes "very good edits" which "all editors should recognize." Give me a break, Darwish is being disruptive by constantly pausing every discussion with "The Case Again Wikifan." You truly think this behavior is appropriate Cerejota? Let's assume for a second that everything he claims is true and I'm the worst editor here, does that really justify his attacks and personal wars?? Considering this, I think Darwish easily qualifies as a wikihounder. I'm not denying his wonderful and grand contributions to wikipedia, but he's been singling me out which I've largely ignored but his threats are beyond annoying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not, but I believe in talkign with people before jumping around. Before I took TB to AE, I made many attempts, including his talk page to communicate. I really don't give a fuck if people expect me to be neutral or not, or consistent or not, I am me. I do try to be fair If you re-read my point, you will see I am actually asking him to pursue the matter differently - and you can see my comments on the matter. I understand you feel singled out - which is why I asked Darwish not to do it.
Not you specifically, but just the attitude. I make a mistake and it's a trial, but anyone else (including Darwish) can continue to violate rules without notice. It's especially insulting when people start acting self-righteous like Darwish is right now, ffs man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know how that can feel. However, I am not sure Darwish gets free passes - I am somewhat more diplomatic dealing with your case because you and me have a history, but your buddies do stand up for you - you are certainly not alone. Let them do it. In fact, look at how things go down. You remember how at the start of the article I would tell you to WP:CHILL. You thought I was fucking with you, but I am not - its not the end of the world, let it slide. You have my word, I will be less diplomatic if things out of DR happen, such as naming people on section headers. But I find it hard to defend you if your response is always thermonuclear: trolls require care and feeding, and you are a classic troll feeder, to the point you start turning green yourself sometimes :D. Witness how Non-Zionist is not around anymore: he got called on his trolling ways, by me. TLDR threads are preferable to edit wars, and usually at the end some sort of solution emerges. Accusation fly, people totally fail to AGF, then we kiss and make up (or at least retreat to regroup) until the next round.
You cannot possibly expect people who disagree with you to suddenly agree with you, nor can you expect them to ignore the history. Just because I can, doesn't mean everyone can. Perhaps you guys need to pursue some sort of mediation over this, WP:MEDCAB might be good. Sometimes and uninvolved third party can help. I learned a lot from my previous experiences, both about myself and how wikipedia actually works... --Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the major difference is that we are not equals. I am continually called on and named even in the simplest of arguments, such as bleh, or using pictures/format from my userpage for satirical pics expressing a "troll" that clearly points to me: DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE WIKIFAN IS A TOTAL TROLL, or Darwish/Nab patting each other on the back back rubbing. I actually laughed at the danger high voltage thing, go to the behavior section and you'll see it. So funny. But seriously, is that allowed? Anyways, point is: I continue to pay the price for any alleged (true or false) behaviors through harassment, false-accusations, justified and unjustified blocks and ridiculous unnecessary noticeboard discussion where Nab and Dar also lend their wonderfully objective opinion. It's not so much us butting heads as it is me using a bat and them using a gun. Unfair fight more like it. I'm doing the best I can to avoid confrontation but at times it is necessary, and even when being cordial they know who I am so it's a self-fulling prophecy. I just don't want all this evidence, which 95% is total b.s to be used in a future class-action 100 million dollar lawsuit against Wikifan12345. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, very well written and convincing Cerejota. I completely agree and I'll strike the latest accusation paragraph as a mean of good will. Thanks for being an "honest" supporter. --Darwish (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man - I know you messaged me about the POV tag and as a matter of courtesy I probably should have responded to you before I wrote on the talk page. My opinion differs from yours and I don't apologize for it, but my intentions are noble and I do try to be courteous.
I know your intentions are good. But so are those of the editors who do not share your view. On the specific tagging issue, there is the aesthetic considerations I have raised regarding redundancy etc, but there is also the more substantial one of why the tags. Tags should never be placed to "simply" mark or tatoo an article: an argument should be made as to why teh tags ar ebeing placed, to allow editors to ponder and consider edits that lead to the removal of the tags. My point is that you have not presented such arguments or those arguments do not warrant tagging.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Cerejota. But I did make those arguments - articulately - in the section about the neutrality tag. I can't see how I could have been clearer. Betacrucis (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Do not call or claim you are being called racist, it will lead down nasty roads, because it will (its a circular, fractal thing)
2) People who go around adding ancestry do so for a number of reasons, not always positive - last big blow up with "outing" Jewish figures was done by a nazi to "prove" Jewish infiltration - so the community is weary of obsessive editing of nationalities. In fact, the community is weary of anything obsessive. Search "Betacommand" for an object lesson - one of the most productive admins and contributors who got in hot water for being obsessive.
3) Go to the deacon of "Jewpedia", User:Jayjg, he and I don't always look eye to eye, but he has done a lot for WP:JEW, and when I say a lot, I mean a lot, which you should probably join, he can probably point you in the direction of others doing similar efforts. I understand the impulse of national identification, we do the same thing at WP:PUR, but its better and less painful if you are mentored by older wikipedians, wo would protect and nurture your efforts, and make sure you don't get noticeboarded, in part by pointing out in an environment of trust that you are fucking up :D.
4) Never try to tell someone they are somethign they deny, even if true, it is soapboxing, has elements of WP:OUTING, and can definitely be interpreted as harrassment. Even if that is not your intention, it doesn't matter, harrasment is easy to not do: stop talking to the person in their talk page.
5) There have been many more before you who have done the same mistakes. Some have left in disgust, unable to adapt. Others, well, they grow up and make amazing articles. Some like me, just like it extreme :).--Cerejota (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we're in the process now, but we wanted to at least make it comparable to Peter Hanson which I think we've done. I don't think it qualifies for deletion as the WI is a reliable source since Lindsay is employed their and we also included UN-sources for the criticisms. We also have Jpost for the interview, BBC, and CNN. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care. He is trying to justify his behavior while I'm doing my best to explain to him what he (or Nableezy) did incorrectly. Re-read the discussion, this isn't a time for intervention Cerejota. I didn't do anything wrong here, does wiki allows allow users to constantly use personal incidents in the past as argument? I'm trying to edit according to the rules but it's basically impossible when people act like children. Is there something wrong with what I said, specifically, in that actual section? It's becoming quite an issue, especially when it derails important discussion into a wikifan bandwagon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not into the discussion (and I tend on this particular one to agree with your argument). I am talking about how you are vulnerable to such strawmaning for previous incidents, and how one has a responsibility to de-escalate. And for example, describing people as "children", for simply being in total disagreement with you (which they have every right to be), is precisely what one calls "patronzing". For the most part these are adults, to a certain extent smart and articulate, and you will definitely get a negative response if you question that premise. Call them POV pushers, but call them "children" and You Just Lost The Game. That is why we have WP:AGF, not as a stick to beat people with, but as a Zen-like state of mind. --Cerejota (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by children I mean naive and ignorant, not POV-pushing because [not Nableezy, different user] seemed confuse and totally uneducated about what the actual section and what me and Nableezy are about. His first response was, "Stop scrabbling." That makes me feel like a child, mmmk? I can't possibly be responsible for every users opinion of me and I don't intend to right every alleged-wrong, I just pointed out a problem and explained the issue in a straight-forward "cordial" manner. Everyone seems to feel perfectly fine in calling me a retard, saying they'll ignore me, etc...and I personally don't care, but this is another double-standard which is rather irritating. If you think something is up by all means respond in the section. Next time I'm expected to de-escalate add hearts and flowers. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at it, and I think the reaction was a bit extreme, but I am loathe to summarily overturn Drini without him being able to respond. I would suggest dropping a note on WP:ANI, and if enough sysops agree, then it would be an easier overturn. -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked User: Jumdo on the grounds that a block should be used only as a last resort after all attempts to an open civil dialogue between the parties involved over issues have failed. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can´t make fancy barnstars yet, but thank you. It sems that Jmundo has been fully vindicated, while I still have a pall cast over me.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were unblocked by Drini, Jmundo was unblocked by a different admin. Drini won't apologize, and won't even recognize what he did wrong, unfortunately. --Cerejota (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would have probably commented "support". People make mistakes. There are some people whose judgment I tend to trust who are supporting him. Besides, stewardship is a vital, dirty job, so anyone who can take it should eb allowed to have it. My only weak opposition is that like many stewards, he only knows two languages - I believe in general stewards should be polyglots.--Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should always vote your conscience, and I hope that you don´t believe that I would not want you to vote anyway other than your mind.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time but didn't know this tag existed... I shall be making use of it! Best wishes. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From all those userboxes you look like you have the necessary knowledge or could provide a reference/link to a question regarding templates for the Organised Labour project. If you have time it would be appreciated if you could have a look at this coding question. Thank you. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand you can feel badgered, but following around like this is not really bad, in particular Ceedjee has been in this topic area for way longer than you have - if it turns into an intervention on everything you say that's another matter.
I added the neutrality disputed tag and the last sentence which contains opinions of Morris' analysis from other experts. It's only a temporary fix and Ceejea has been reverting/replacing most of my edits in spite of lengthy talk discussions. I told him a dispute resolution might be most effective in ending the problem, but I'm not sure if he agrees. Does he have to agree? I don't know how to submit things and I don't know how far my name will go but I'm really concerned this will end up getting out of hand. Can you point me in the right direction here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Ceedje is saying about Morris is the truth, academically speaking: "The Birth..." is the most cited work on the time period covered, and praised by even Morris' opponents in histographic terms. If you find Morris "extremely biased", you are finding modern academia, what we call "reliable secondary or tertiary sources" biased. This might be the case (Finklestein among others argue this), but then wikipedia carries that bias, implicitly - and that bias has to be resolved outside of wikipedia before it can be solved in wikipedia. I have read pretty much everything in English by Morris, and even started Israel's Secret Wars - because thats probably the first historical text I read about Israel. So I do not make a good mediator in this case, if you understand. However, this is not a debate I wish to engage in either, as Ceedje can carry it himself.
My recommendation, as always, is to be more patient. You do have a good argument in that perhaps some critical views of Morris' work are warranted, because in Israel this is a mainstream debate. However, and this goes to all criticism, one must be careful not to WP:SYNTH with criticism: it must be criticism directly related to the topic of the page. There are two reasons for this:
1) General condemnations of an academic belong in his or her biography or articles about the generalities of his or her work - so taking a general criticism in an specific topic area is not really a good idea, because its OR. For example, someone who criticizes Morris in general, might find that his opinion on this topic are solid. Unlikely, but thats exactly what WP:SYNTH forbids: the inclusion of "obvious" information unless it is well-sourced.
2) The article is not about Morris, but a topic Morris writes about: changing the focus to satisfy a percieved bias is much worse than keeping that percieved bias in the article. After all, we can wikilink to Morris, to controversies around Morris, etc. I think in the thread you have lost this focus, but this is just my impression.
I still think, for example, that Roof knocking is very biased, but this is due to the relatively one-sided coverage of the phenomenon - and me edit warring on the tag was stupid. Consider that an object lesson.
To answer your other question, he has to agree to any mediation, be it "Informal" or "Formal", but you can also look for assistance in the various noticeboards, like the WP:POVN, WP:RSN, or WP:NORN ones, or you can also do an WP:RFC - I recommend against that option in was seems to be a two person debate - or ask for a third opinion - which I highly recommend in this case - however, a lot of third opinioners are very weary of WP:ARBPIA articles). Do keep in mind you won't necessarily see your argument come on top when you do this, so be ready to accept this (even if you disagree). Who knows, maybe later new sources emerge and the issue has to be revisited.--Cerejota (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing Morris' views, my primary concern was that the section was totally and 100% dependent on Morris' analysis. A subject so controversial and widely-studied should not be explained from a controversial figure 100% IMO. Especially when his exact viewpoint is being contested by notable (and possibly more popular) experts from both the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel aisle. I'm not debating Morris' specific facts or even the possibility that they're 100% concrete, but for a section that important it would seem very wise to include a more neutral perspective, or in the least an alternative perspective to balance Morris'. Does that make sense? Again, Morris belongs to the New Historian group of experts. Do you agree with this? If you don't, I don't see how anyone else would to be honest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Morris is a New Historian. This is an indisputable fact. And of course he is biased, as will be all historians. The issue is if he is wrong on the facts of the matter at hand (ie, chronology, events etc), or if these facts are disputed. The way to fix this is not via criticism of Morris, but by adding other sources of equal standing to verify what is being said. We have articles who use a single secondary source to provide a framework all over the place, some of them of featured article quality - and most of them have some controversy attached to this single source. This is something that there is systemic consensus about - academic reliable sources are the best sources, and any controversy around them have to be met at the same level. Morris is a solid academician, very well cited, and a source - like it or not - at the level of the NYT in terms of reliability. I suggest you raise this at WP:RSN if you have doubts (make sure to cite this thread if you do).
If his exact viewpoint is being contested then dig the source for the specific issue of contention, add the information, and source it. What is unacceptable and un-encyclopedic is to go around opposing every use of Morris as a RS because he is criticized somewhere, as I already explained. This is why your point is weak, because you are making an OR point, instead of backing it up with RS. Permataging an article with neutrality tags simply because one is unable at the moment to find these relevant sources is generally considered WP:POINTy, and in fact is one of the reasons WP:ARBPIA exists.
Academic notability is not a popularity contest, it is based on citations etc. WP:PROF. It is an objective criteria. Long story short, find a counter-history that is as WP:PROF notable as Morris, to insert information that fixes any neutrality issues. But questioning neutrality simply because Morris is used goes against the spirit and the letter of WP:5P, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Be specific, not general. --Cerejota (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so should I just find a notable professor who has a alternative viewpoint than Morris, and source it? The section is a controversy simply because it is an analysis, there are hundreds of analuysis regarding this exact section and the majority of them don't fit the frame Morris' has attempted to create. Now all I need to do is find another professor who has an analysis on Morris' topic and pair it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but make sure it is equally notable and comparable, using not political/polemical criteria, but actual academic notability. For example, Finkelstein is a weak choice (he is mostly purely polemical, not historiographical), but Efraim Karsh might be a good choice (I have no idea if he has addressed this matter specifically, but he is probably the best known, and respected, academic critic of the New Historians - and if he has done a contrary analisys on this matter it certainly would warrant inclusion, as it would not doubt be at the level of Morris in seriousness and rigor). The best sources are those who do not provide direct criticism, but alternative analysis of the same facts. I would certainly defend a well sourced, well made edit of this nature. --Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to inform me of this discussion. Wikifan, do you really think that discussing with Cerajota to convince him of your arguments is mediation...
I have given my point in the talk page. In a few words : there is no analysis of Morris in this section.
nb: On wikipedia, Karsh, Finkelstein and Morris must be considered at the same level. ie, they are wp:rs secondary sources. They can be used to report facts and their analysis are welcome. Critics to Karsh and Finkelstein are that while Morris studied primary sources, Karsh (and Finkelstein) only studied Morris's work. But it is not the concern here.
Ceedjee: he is simply asking for advice, which I have given - in the spirit of furthering dialogue and encyclopedic quality. I already expressed no interest, as of now, to edit the article in question - but there are general principles that one applies, and since I do have an interest in the general topic, I gave my opinion.
As to your comments on RS etc, I agree, even if I didn't frame it in esoteric "primary research vs secondary debate" terms, in more layman's "academic vs polemical" work. Finkelstein is certainly a polemicist - which is why I advice he not be used - but Karsh, to my knowledge (as I have not read him with any level of profoundity), has done independent primary source research, even when answering Morris. There is certainly a difference between polemics and academic debates (ie Bohr–Einstein debates) - even within a single source. It is hence concievable (and as I alredy stated, I do not know it to be the case). In essence, I am inviting Wikifan to base his editing and opposition to what he sees as bias in the use of sources and reasoned arguments, rather than general polemical points - which is what some of his arguments are. I apologize for not being clear enough in this respect.
You two should seriously consider dispute resolution, perhaps WP:Third opinion (if this is a content issue) or WP:MEDCAB (if there are behavioral issues). Since this is on my talk page, and there is no consequence to any discussion on it, I find your comment on "not informing you" strange, and ask you to explain why I should have informed you of this thread, or in its defect strike the comment out, in the spirit of civility. After all, these are open talk pages, not noticeboards. Unless you have anything to tell me about anything, I suggest you refrain from further contributions to this talk page: my talk page if not a noticeboard or an article talk page. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota,
There is a misunderstanding.
The you in my message was dedicated to wikifan, not you, Cerejota. He had wrote to me he was looking for a party to mediate, not advices. I thought it was you and that is why I suggested to discuss on the talk page of the article about that and not here. And, please, note that in his last answer here above, in the context of my discussions with him, this had nothing to deal with advices but sounds rather as a conclusion.
The only solution is third party advice, indeed.
About Karsh, I think you are wrong but this is a complex debate and a little bit unrelevant for wikipedia. Karsh has no academic reconnaissance about the topic of the 1948 exodus among his peers. And definitely less than Finkestein (who is certainly not as much polemist as you think. He is in the references of the Birth... revisited. Karsh has some academic reconnaissance concerning the global critics he had against the New Historian's methodology about the '48 war. He is in the reference of the book of Yoav Gelber about the '48 war.
If you are interested personnally, we can discuss this on my talk page or email but this is not relevant for wp, given : Efraim Karsh is a wp:rs source (even if of less value per wp:due weight than other scholars who published heavily on the issue of the '48 exodus).
It is an analysis, the original section (before I even touched it) referred to Morris' POV as an "analysis." Practically every historian who judges Israel/Pal is analyzing, nothing is 100% concrete. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you stil want to I will do it, but I think it serserves it, and we are workign on fixing the different issues. In particular, I have been doing the research around the books etc. I will also take care of the picture issues, they are definitely fair-use. So what do you say? I just think that we should try to turn as much of the GAs around into FAs, to give more prominence to the hard work the WP:PUR - and specially you - has done. --Cerejota (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, please re-consider Tony's suggestion of removing the nomination. The article is far from FA. I can provide feedback if you want on this or the article's talk page or through your email. I would prefer not to outright oppose it in the FAC. Joelito (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for the Barnstar. Your words really made me feel good. I believe that our group, and by that I mean all in our community who are writing the truth of our island and the positive contributions which we have made to society, together we are really making a difference as to how we and the world looks at us. Thank you for being part of that. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
title
I originally wanted the title to be OCL, I don't remember Gaza war even being an option though I could be wrong. I believe GW is just too vague. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got a suggestion besides OCL (its POV and not supported by RS - its maybe 25 articles in the title at most - so no f***ing way :)? "conflict" is too broad - in particular compared to the other "conflict" articles, so we have to change the name - I think at most adding the Year In Front might work, because RS call it so.--Cerejota (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with war, but would prefer Israel-Gaza war or if it were my choice Israel-terrorist scum war. :D—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
(Un)fortunately you KNOW that won't fly ;). But if you have no issue with war (which BTW, is how Jpost, Haaretz, and Ynet refer to it most of the time), why not change your !vote. Maybe even with "I reserve the right to explore other names in the future" For example, "Israel-Gaza war" was opposed heavily, but not "Gaza war". I am certainly not happy with "Gaza war" as it is still ambigous, but it is by far less ambigous than what we currently have, but at least it makes it clear that it is a specific part of the conflict, not the general. And is supported by RS, to boot. I am just trying to find another temporary consensus version to move things forward. --Cerejota (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the current title could be any less vague than Gaza War. 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is far more specific than "Gaza War."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
Well, for starters, it is conceivable that there will be other events in 2009. This article is about OCL, called "Gaza war" (among other things) by the RS. We would need an article called "conflict" to cover those further events, but need an unambiguous title to cover OCL. Both are vague, but "Gaza war" is less so, in particular due to recenticism. As I said, we can always change it again. --Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. If there is another war, then we can change the title...but changing it preemptively under the knowledge that will have to change it once more doesn't make sense to me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this point, and why it makes no sense. However, do you really feel that "conflict" is less ambiguous than "war", in light of the RS? Why? That makes even less sense to me, becuase "conflict" has very little RS support in "allintitle" searches when compared to "war". I am trying to understand the position. --Cerejota (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you do not believe in our policies and guidelines? WP:MILMOS#NAME, which specifically advices us to use "the most common name used to refer to the event", and in the case of Operation names WP:MILMOS#CODENAME, specifically says "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other).". You suggested OCL again, but this is a bad choice for all the reasons WP:MILMOS#CODENAME gives, so we are stuck with the "most common name", which has proven time and again to be "Gaza war". I do not see why we should forgo the systemic consensus in this case, as it exists precisely not to allow these things to turn into insufferable wars. You have any reason for why we should ignore these guidelines? --Cerejota (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Gaza War truly the most cited title for the conflict? Guidelines exist to be a guide, not follow-to-the-dot. Gaza War is beyond ambiguous and vague, I'm sure dozens of conflicts in Gaza/Israel have been referred to as "The War in Gaza" or "Gaza War" in media because the war is already public, so there is no need to clarify any further. But when the war(s) ended, they would no longer be called "Gaza War." I would be ok with 2008-2009 Gaza War, but simply "Gaza War" is absurd. I would also be ok with a [8] kind of lead. Keep the current title, but call it "also known as Gaza War, Gaza conflict, etc..etc..." Though that is also stupid but just an idea...Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swuccs articles nomination for speedy deletion
Hello!!
Section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion states that:
An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except SCHOOLS), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
The articles i've made are about the different Colleges of Southwestern University (Philippines) and i guess those articles didnt violate the criteria you've stated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swuccs (talk • contribs)
Please read WP:NOTE in particular WP:GNG. The articles you have created are for sub-schools of a barely notable college. While the college itself might be considered notable, the sub-schools do not deserve encyclopedic treatment outside of a mention in the parent article, unless they are notable themselves. Notability is an objective criteria established by significant coverage in reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject". You completely lack these sources in the articles you have created, and hence they should be deleted. Notability is not inherited.--Cerejota (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the source of my articles is Southwestern University (Philippines) Center for Information and Publication including the SWU Coffee Table Magazine. Isn't it enough to be considered as a reliable source?Swuccs (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a reliable source that proves notability, because it is a self-published source (Please read WP:RS). If notability is established using significant coverage from reliable sources (as I explained above), then the coffee table magazine might be used as a primary source of additional information. BTW, always sign your post, but always sign them at the end. I have reformatted your message to show this.--Cerejota (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that sub-schools do not deserve encyclopedic treatment but why is it that De La Salle University colleges have their own separate articles?
Swuccs (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, Swuccs is right that A7 explicitly excludes schools, and that reflects the non-consensus of the latest discussion about it: being a school is an indication of importance, even if it's only an elementary school or a "sub-school", as you say. If you want to persue this I'd suggest a mass nomination at AfD. --Amalthea 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ... or start a merge discussion at Southwestern University (Philippines). --Amalthea12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Albanians
I believe that's not how you meant it, but as I said it just reads that way to me. Faith I have, which is why I'm here asking for you to adjust it to better reflect what you meant. Cheers --AbsolutDan(talk)13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't the "spam" concerns that caused this edit have been addressed simply by mentioning other earlier manufacturers or otherwise changing the article so that it would be on the same topic without giving prominence to—or maybe not even mentioning—that one company? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Adurimovie]] to articles/categories that belong in it.
I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.
If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.
Thanks! We need a lot more of those checks. Of course what caught my attention in that section was the gratuitous, pornographic use of a non-metric weight unit. Disgusting. Sean.hoyland - talk02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, didn't know about that one. I notice that the RS use ton, tone? and tonne all to describe the same quantities in this case. Useless bunch of... Not quite as bad as Ynet changing actual word "pool" to editorial word "flood" in their report about recruited bloggers. Sean.hoyland - talk04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hey man. Can you lend a hand at Israel/Gaza conflict talk for me? It's becoming very heated and I don't think I can deal with RomaC validating everyone who isn't me. :D Trying to avoid a blockage here so any third opinion would be super duper. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block is not about intention, its about the nature of the name itself. In no way it is commentary on any behavior, except the name of the account, which is clearly promotional.
That said it is worrying that it seemed to be a collective account, something explicitly forbidden in our rules, and strongly frowned upon by the community. If it is indeed one person, all they have to do is open a new - non-promotional - name, and continue editing according to the rules. If it is a collective account, each person should open an individual account - or they might be banned.
All the actions behind the block have been done in the interest of furthering encyclopedic quality, and protect the project from misuse, as it is understood in the systemic consensus. We assume good faith on the part of "Swuccs", so the least he/they can do is assume good faith back - and follow the rules like everyone else. The policies around account creation are, to my knowledge, non-negotiable and not open to interpretation beyond the determination of the promotional/offensive/banned content of a given username. Since in this case it has been decided that Swuccs is a promotional account, there is no recourse, unless a bad faith action is suspected on the part of an admin, in which case you can raise it at WP:DRAMA. However, I do not see any misuse of tools, or bad faith behind the block. -Cerejota (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt think anyone (including you) intended any harm. I just got the impression that it was a "biting a noob" thing. Have they been told what they need to do? I mean in simple english like something "hey if you could just create separate accounts everything will be fine from here on, no hard feelings." I am going to write that on there page. If saying something like that is not allowed just delete it. Once again I am not accusing anyone of wrong doing I just view this as an unfortunate accident. I mean heck I been using wikipedia for years but until this I never know that you were not allowed to share accounts. Good thing I never did that. Best of luck! The Isiah (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block message clearly states the reasons, and remedies, and the welcome message provided very helpful advice. I agree with (and actually was the original editor for) WP:BITE's "Ignorantia juris may excuse" section. However, ignorance of rules doesn't mean we should not apply rules: it simply means that we must assume that violating them was done in good faith, by not taking more extreme measure, as we would with a vandal. One should not be bity, but new editors should know that we mean business with those talk page templates inviting them to read the rules. Wikipedia:Username policy clearly states: Usernames that are clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, but have no obvious disruptive intent may be blocked indefinitely, but the block should affect only that account (disable autoblocks, and disable "prevent account creation"). If your account has been blocked for this reason, don't take it personally; it is intended to disable the username you chose, not to prevent you from contributing. Please read this page carefully and choose a more appropriate name. and User accounts must only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked. When we link to the policy pages, a user has the responsibility to read them, and to continue with behavior after notification - or to raise objections without taking time to read them, is not biting, but simple enforcement of the policies. There is such a thing as individual responsibility and common sense, you know? --Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
February 2009 User talk:82.12.249.252
Hello, I altered this because I've never made any changes to this Wolves page and don't see why I should have a derogatory comment on my user page. How did I get this comment if I never made the chage to the Wolves page in the first place... BTW I'm a Liverpool supporter, so it's all the worse !!!
82.12.249.252 (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Cole: NY LA Deletion Request
Hi,
You marked the NY LA album I just created a little while ago for deletion, but I'm not 100% sure why. Steve Cole's page has existed on here since October of 2004, so it's not like this is a random creation. He has had a few number one hits (in the jazz world) and has also recorded with some legends (Bill Withers and Grover Washington Jr). Moreover, the album you marked for deletion also has an 'Album Pick' from All Music and a near perfect rating.
Also, importance is extremely subjective in general for anything.
Thanks - Jhendrix86
Notability is not subjective. Please read WP:NALBUMS, which explains why this article should be delete. Keep in mind that notability is not inherited: not all albums by a notable musician deserve to have their own article, only albums that are themselves notable.--Cerejota (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you better get started on a tough task at hand..I have seen TONS of albums with their own pages on here that nowhere near meet the requirement for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhendrix86 (talk • contribs)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is irrelevant to this discussion if there are other albums who fail the criteria but have articles. Feel free to request they be deleted if you feel they should. However, be aware we do not tend to like WP:POINT. --Cerejota (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now a question. Would this album in question have notability if I could show it peaked at number six on a Billboard Chart (and higher than any other of his albums)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhendrix86 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about only one edit amongst your several contributions to the article about the upcoming 35th G8 summit in Italy. You deleted the segment about a projected budget (for which details are yet unknown); and your edit summary succinctly explained your reasoning -- "then we dont have to say."
In my view, this might become an arguably defensible edit in July, perhaps; but not now. I'm persuaded that the peculiar forward-looking point-of-view requires mentioning such unknown, unpublicized or unclarified aspects of pre-planning. The context for this seemingly controversial point is created by what is known about the previous summits; and my confidence in focusing on this small detail is underscored by the evolution of pre-planning for the 36th G8 summit in Canada.
As you can see, I've now undone this one edit; and I wonder if you could help me develop this explanation a little further. If my argument is not clear enough, please help me figure out how to explain it better. Now that your edit causes me to think of it, I'm guessing that it probably makes sense for us to post a summary of this thread on the talk page of the evolving article about the 37th G8 summit in France. --Tenmei (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the section has essentially no content, acting as kind of a place holder. That is not a good thing. As information emerges, a section on the budget. But a statement saying "the Italian government has not released a budget" or something to that effect, in particular without a source, but even if well sourced, is certainly not encyclopedic content. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did construe this section as a placeholder; and in the context outlined above, I saw that as appropriate for prospective subjects like this one. It was helpful for you to suggest that I re-examine this section in light of WP:CRYSTAL. I don't understand WP:SYNTH as relevant; but now I do see how this small issue could have been handled differently.
In general, most of my contributions to Wikipedia have related to pre-Meiji Japanese history (before 1868). My very limited experience with articles having this kind of forward-looking perspective included the 2008 Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD-IV) and the 34th G8 summit in Hokkaido. I wanted to try to build on those positive experiences by participating in the development of 35th G8 summit and 36th G8 summit; and I consider your comments as the first modest pay-off which flows from my investment in such subjects.
Aha, I see.
As a result of your feedback, I'll remove the placeholder section while I try to find some published mention of costs or projected pre-planning expenses. I almost seem to recall reading that NATO's decommissioning budget for its Sardinian Naval facility was factored into the 2008 projected budget costs ...? If I had simply incorporated that tenuous fact (along with the source citation), this issue would have failed to catch your attention ... and I would have continued to misunderstand. When I created this section, I was thinking ahead to some kind of formal announcement which explained that the Italian government had budgeted lira for x, y, and z -- but, of course, that's only one amongst a number of ways to see this aspect of planning for the summit in July.
I'll plan to restore this deleted section in a day or two -- whenever I'm able to add a minimal foundation. Yes, good. Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Cerejota/Archives. This is the sixth issue of WikiProject Puerto Rico's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members to keep up with the latest news relating to the project. Continuing our new format, this issue will discuss the news, achievements and other incidences relevant to our project between fall and winter. - Caribbean~H.Q.22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flags and records
Greetings, during the past months, there has been a lot of activity and active discussion surrounding articles within our scope. Of particular interest is one that took place in Flag of Puerto Rico, in which several project members exposed their points of view regarding the tones of our flag. Ultimately, research brought forth a severe loophole in the regulation employed by the Senate of Puerto Rico. Our flag doesn't have official tones! Attempting to prevent future conflicts, I presented a proposal in the project's talk page. The subsequent discussion served as an perfect example of consensus. Thanks to everyone for your participation. In other news, our friend Tony the Marine added another impressive achievement to his brilliant resume. On December 8, 2008, his DYK hook for Ivan Castro (soldier) broke the previous all-time record for more views, receiving 71,300 visits. Tony has also been actively cooperating with this Newsletter, the inclusion of a new "Did you Know?" section, was entirely his idea. - Caribbean~H.Q.22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never forget, regardless of colors or ideals, this flag represents all of us.
Project News
On January 3, 2009, Cerejota presented a draft interested in establishing a solid style guide for the project. The current revision can be seen here, further suggestions can be placed in the project's talk page.
Cerejota my amigo, how you doing? I understand why you moved Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii to “Puerto Rican migration to Hawaii”, however I moved it back again. The reason is that the article is mainly based on the immigration which started in 1899, when Puerto Ricans were not U.S. citizens and were considered non-citizen aliens and later focuses on the Puerto Rican struggle for U.S. citizens. In other words, our people were immigrants until 1917 when they became migrants by way of U.S. citizenship. Do I make sense?. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
spanish
i'm sorry to bother you, but is this the source you were looking at when you said it read "antisemitic posters"? this is the one i was referring to in my comment on the talk page.
Experimental and Special Weapons on 2008-2009 IP conflict
i don't think you have said much on this subject and your help in this matter could give a direction in which to head. when you have a bit of time, please say a few words etc. also it was 'josh' who brought it up if you want to drop him a line.
A notability tag would have been more appropriate than speedy delete. Please try to be constructive rather than antagonistic. Malick78 (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CoretjaCarejota Cerejota, We seemed to have got off on a wrong foot and it seems that the discussion is getting more personal than content-focused; so let me set somethings right from my end:
My comment "... is simply wrong" though talking about content (rather than you) was ill-phrased and unnecessarily dogmatic. Although I still think the point I was trying to make (i.e., that is NFCC/FU applies to news images just as it applies to all other non-free content) to be true, I apologize if the phrasing appeared too pointed.
If you think I am lax or ignorant of copyright law, please look at my past editing history. I am too lazy to pull up diffs, but you can read my comments here (read the last para in the section to see if we are on the same page), or in this section on Ganesha talk page, which includes my comment. "Sorry, if all this appears anal but we don't have the option of disregarding the copyright law, no matter how cumbersome it may be."
I too hate over-burdening an article with "decorative" or poorly licensed images. See my recent comments at Talk:Maharashtra#Photo Gallery.
That said, we have a good faith difference on use of two images on the Lahore attack article. Lets deal with it as behooves two experienced and well-intentioned editors. PS: if you object to my posting on your talk page, just let me now and I won't do so again. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that. However, it would go a long way to get you in my good graces if you spelled my nick name right. I mean, a mis-spell here and a mis-spell there is okay, but you have done it every time. ;) As a token of good faith I am striking my cruft comment here.--Cerejota (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... oops, I must have misread it once, and then it stuck.
Lets sit on the issue for a day or two and see what others have to say. Neither the article nor the images are going anywhere immediately. By the way, in case you are wondering, for me the issue is entirely intellectual and I have no particular emotional attachment to the pictures or subject. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we are the same. Now, not to be a Richard or anything, but you mispelled my nick, again. I mean, keep doing it, its fun, but am just sayin'...--Cerejota (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't appear too bright, do I ? :)
I was mentally thinking of it as Coret-zaa and then Care-jota, and misspelled it twice! What is the proper pronunciation ? Abecedare (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I am a numismatic writer working on an article about Puerto Rican numismatics tied in with the launch of the new quarter dollar.
Can you point me to a source for most of the info listed in the article about the pre-1800s currency history?
Gould/Higgie breezes through that in a sentence or two, and even the Banco Popular Numismatic collection catalog doesn't have much.
Thanks.
Jeff Starck
jstarck [at] coinworld [dot] com
Stlcardinalsfan17 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Please re-read WP:3RR. Brewcrewer entered his edits almost four days before mine. Consecutive edits do not count towards 3RR. There is clear discussion in the page. I suggest that before template the regulars, you read the actual policies, and provide evidence for your assertions. I try to be on a self-imposed 1RR restriction as per WP:IPCOLL. So far, that is exactly what I have done in the article in question.
I ask that you please strike the templated message, as a measure of good faith, or provide evidence for your assertion utilizing diffs. Should I prove to have engaged in 3RR, I suggest that
Just a friendly note on Nilima Sen. I declined the speedy deletion request because "famous singer" is a claim of importance. If the singer isn't notable, AfD would be the way to go. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me19:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mention in media is not a measure of notability. Of all the google hits, only one is directly refering to him, and it is a letter to the editor. One hit in google scholar, in a "thank you" is also not notability. Please see WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC for the criteria that apply. BTW, I did do a google search before putting the CSD tag. --Cerejota (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, media technically is a measure of notability. I'll do some research and see what I can add to the article. Frankly, for someone who died in 1996, I would not expect this many hits unless there was some notability there, because most of the sources would be dead tree ones. (And I'm sure you can understand why I assumed you didn't do a google search when you applied the tag one minute after the article was created. Very few people can do a thorough search that fast.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does have a tech, recentist bias, but it is up to the editors to not be lazy and find the dead tree sources. In firefox, you right click on a text and it searches google for it, then a quick browse of the summaries and hit count. Can be done in under a minute. So no, I cannot see why you would fail to assume good faith in that at least some homework was done.--Cerejota (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was being careful not to bite the user responsible for all those stubs, but he went ahead and recreated them anyway...and all were copyright violations. :) I've gently advised him against it. Thanks for the update. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cerejota. You have new messages at YZEMA's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm doing that and expanding the list, as I've found a huge glut of stations that used the brand (and an image!). For the 1990s part, can't it be concluded from the fact that nearly every one of the stations on that list used it in the early '90s? Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be concluded, but please re-read "no original research". This is precisely what original research is - you are seeing a pattern, and you are describing it in Wikipedia. What you need to do is find some reliable source that also reaches the same conclusion, and use that as a source. Please also re-read my previous line here, as I do not want to repeat myself. However, if the only source of this is our collective opinion, then it must be deleted as non-notable original research.--Cerejota (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and encouragment in getting this article off the ground. I've had this similar 'challenge' just a week ago, but I believe in this article and look forward to expanding it. (If you wouldn't mind helping out a new editor: How is it that I get an article looked at for grading? I've been looking around a bit but I can't quite figure out the procedure. Thanks.) Alonsornunez (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sometimes we WP:Recent changes patrolers get caught up in the action, but sometimes an article pops up that needs help. To answer your question, in general assessment scales are set by the WP:ASSESS and are joined and expressed via WP:WIKIPROJECTs. Certain projects have certain requirements and ways of expressing them. Have a look at WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ which might answer your questions better.
I'm after some wiki-wisdom if you have some to spare. I've just noticed in this diff that User:Mcenroeucsb added this template. Further probing showed that the user has added it to many pages recently without any discussion on the talk pages and without edit summaries. I left a message on the template talk page but I wondered what you think is the appropriate course of action in a situation like this ? Just do the revert step in WP:BRD and wait to see what happens or...something...not...like...that... ? Sean.hoyland - talk13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about my wisdom, but I would also try WT:TERRORISM, and a few of the most controversial talk pages, but yeah, BRD with good edit summaries should be enough to revert. I am not clear if you adressed it directly with the guy but you should, WP:AGF and all that. Mass templating is very much highly frowned upon, in particular WP:DRIVEBY (ie when they are POV pushing), people have been sanctioned for it. In fact, if the behavior continues I would suggest WP:DRAMA for admin action. When doing things like this, at the very least a good edit summary is expected. --Cerejota (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's helpful. I haven't contacted him yet but I will. I don't think he's deliberately pushing a POV or acting in bad faith. It looks more like over-enthusiasm. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC).....yes, deleting it would solve everything. Sean.hoyland - talk17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I would like a second set of eyes, and a specification as to what constitued a personal attack. I believ that sniping and sarcasm are not a personal attack, and those things which were referred to as personal attacks were redacted without my opposition. In that context, I think a block was ill advised.--Cerejota (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
If the above linked comment weren't enough, Gwalla did call for an end to sniping and sarcasm, and this is both. Chill and disengage, no matter how hard it is; I know I have enough trouble sometimes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|Since I wa snot clear, I want a second view from an uninvolved admin. I am not convince this is a fair block under the circumstances: the response you cite was to a post that precisely violated this call to calm. Pointing that out is not uncivil at all. Please see my comment in the following section. --Cerejota (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
There was a misunderstanding. User has expressed a desire to participate in a civil manner
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
In particular the diff provided doesn't address a person at all[10] so I do not understand how it can be construed as a personal attack. --Cerejota (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the unblock of MichaelQSchmidt
I still don't see direct evidence where Cerejota made a personal attack. The discussion had several comments redacted so it's difficult to follow the thread. Man in Black links to this but I only see a user reacting with sarcasm and policy to a personal attack. If you didn't know Cerretoja is very involved in the Israel/Palestinian articles so the comment "the article needs cleanup, not deletion, despite being turned into WikiGaza" is comment directed to Ceretoja, and I don't see any warnings or blocks to that user. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redacted portions are here. Blame is well distributed, but it's rather clear that Cerejota was an active participant. MQS was not (speaking as an advocate for MQS, but really, take a look at the page history!). Cerejota could see an early unblock if they would look at their actions on that page and come forth with the areas they went wrong. They certainly didn't go right - that difference is the way forward, what should change next time? Franamax (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "sourcetards" could be interpreted as anything but a personal attack. Also, if you look at that user's talk page, you'll see that I warned him there. I only gave him the benefit of the doubt because it was his first comment on the page. I also don't see any evidence that Kyaa was aware of Cerretoja's connection to Israel/Palestine issues, so it could easily just be a poor choice of metaphor. In light of Ceretoja's combative behavior earlier in the discussion (he's not the only one, but that's no excuse), I am disinclined to unblock. — Gwalla | Talk19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misunderstanding then, the "sourcetards" is not refering to people but rather a lame attempt at making fun of things like "amazon.co.jp" as sources using the Rob Corddry famous "quailtard" construct. The comment is clearly not directed at editors or their behavior, but at the content itself, which is what we should be doing.
Unless sources are considered people, I don't see how this is a personal attack, as I would offer that for an attack to be personal it would require that it be directed at a person not at.
The way I see it, we engaged in a fest of back and forth personal attacks, but A Man In Black put and end to it. All of my subsequent comments where directed at addressing content. This is a block without justification, althougth if the sourcetard comment is indeed the cause one made in good faith, and I request it be removed.--Cerejota (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the "sourcetards" comment primarily. I was unfamiliar with the "quailtards" joke (I'm not a regular Daily Show viewer), but I'll take your word for it and unblock. Hopefully from now on everyone can discuss the article's merits or lack thereof in a calm and rational manner, and come to a reasonable consensus. (At this point, I don't really care what the final decision is, just as long as it doesn't turn into a flamewar again) — Gwalla | Talk20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this. And of course, no ill feelings - I was a bit confused but when you explained it I fully understood. Perhaps when doing obscure references I will source them more appropriately, like I did here.--Cerejota (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Cerejota, the matter is closed. I would perfer not to carry any disagreements from the AfD to my talk page. Thank you. And do we know if Pedro knows how to use a sandbox for whipping an article into shape? Might prevent it showing up ill-prepared in mainspace again. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if sometimes it's the ONLY way to get reliable sources? I can name you two articles I've overhauled where video references are the dominant type - and due to the nature of the articles, that's the way it will have to stay. If a rule hinders the improvement of Wikipedia, should we not ignore it? Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought the same thing!!! Except, if the contents of the post I replied are the page, then don't because I disagree that width of discussion = notability. Pretty much every fancruft AfD is very long because fans won't stop beating the horse into a jelly. --Cerejota (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion section; they (user:Sherzo?) said you had done a 'drive by' and hadn't justified your tags. Thanks for taking the time to visit and try to improve that potentially very important, but at present embarrassingly POV, article.Haberstr (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great initiative, I have done some changes, most of them wikignomic, but I removed the "Qassamcounter" facebook app, because it is not notable, and I also renamed the wikilink for summer rains.--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your critique & working through learning curve
Cerejota - I saw your (well-founded) comments on the David V Mitchell page, and have attempted to respond as best I can. The sourcery on the article has been expanded, and changed to fit Wikipedia style (well, at least as I understand it). I've also started to contribute to some articles here where I have personal, first-hand knowledge from my career as a journalist. Thanks.
I think it still needs work, but it is much better. One of the things is that in general, when linking to external resources, you use WP:CITE methods, instead of linking the text: such "wikilinks" are generally reserved only for internal linkages. There needs to be a wikification. I'll take a look. BTW, the talkback template is only used when there is a message in your page, we all get automatic notfication when we get a message in our talk page.--Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photographers
On Schoerner and others, you say Yeah, photographers tend to be an egomaniacal, self-promoting set.
I don't think so. (However I do start to wonder about the mind-sets of publishers and, more so, the paying public, when I look at Amazon's depiction and write-up of this man's one book.)
At any one time, I'd guess that there are about a thousand photographers in the world who are doing stuff that's interesting (material for an gallery for a thinking public) and are having it exposed somewhere. But only three dozen or so get enough recognition to make a decent living. Go to a bookstore and it's the same few names who get the most exposure (and a high proportion of these are slick and empty, I'd say). For the hundreds of others, there must be a terrible temptation to write up achievements, real, spun, or merely imagined, in the hope of getting a slight edge in the competition for jobs, minor honors, or both.
I thought you'd enjoy them. Well done kicking off CSP: I've got three of his books, but unfortunately none of them is on me right now and I have unfortunately little about him. I'll see what I can dig up, though today I've already more than had my fill of websearfing. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actcreator
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Prodegotalk18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that those individual episode article are very poorly written, and somewhat excessively detailed, but the descriptions of the individual episodes in the list ar not encyclopedic either--they are much too short--about 300 words is the usual standard/ They are also non-encyclopedic in the opposite direction--they are basically teasers.,, and avoid saying what the result of the episode is. Why not use this material to improve them, and then change the individual articles into redirect. You might also want to look for reviews of the individual episodes. DGG (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I said was that they weren't notable. I agree that expansion in the lists is the way to go, but are redirects for each episode on a list really needed? I do not know...--Cerejota (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not merging content myself, but i a guilt of not actually knowing this show & I won't be able to guess correctly what' is significant. If you also can't merge either for that or some other reason, please just put up merge tags instead& hopefully someone will follow up. Thanks, DGG (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page deletion: Theo Green
Hello, I have tried to explain why this article should be included below. Sorry to post directly to your talk, editing my talk page isn't working for some reason.
AND Criteria 10), Has Composed and performed the soundtrack for 2 feature films with theatrical and television release, and a program for BBC television, as supported by References 3) and 4)
AND Criteria 1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable
See Reference link 1) from the Guardian / Observer, an online version of a printed newspaper in the UK - Quote
'The theme of the music was anything to do with alluring and dangerous women,' says Theo Green, who produced the music for the show. 'There's a big tango theme running through the soundtrack because that style of music brings out that sexy but dangerous side in women.' Green's background is in film so music and dialogue from movies such as The Wicker Man, The Ninth Gate and Las Vampiras that hint at the theme were layered on top of the other tracks. 'Some of the tracks may not instantly strike you as the most obvious music to walk to but I think it's good to break it up.'
See also Reference link 2) from The Irish Times, and online version of a printed newspaper in UK/Scotland - Quote
'More impressive still is the audio design. Whereas most low-budget films sleep happily if the dialogue remains perceptible, Hardy, sound designer Theo Green and composer Benjamin Wallfisch have conspired to create an expressionist clamour, which heightens the sense that we are in some drugged nightmare.'
Hi -- if you feel a need to warn an experienced editor such as Malcolm, please use words rather than templates. Templating the regulars is generally viewed as a kind of trolling, and is bound to lose you support if the dispute goes farther. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general 3RR warnings are given using the template, because part of the process is unambiguity in notification. Of course, since 3RR is an objective criteria, not really open to discussion, templating has nothing to do with it... and I do not feel in this case WP:DTTR need to be invoked. Thanks anyways.--Cerejota (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cerejota. You have new messages at Cexycy's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Cerejota. You have new messages at Cexycy's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I want to share with you and every Boricua in Wikipedia that today March 19th, our "Boricua" astronaut Joseph M. Acaba, proudly displayed and placed the Puerto Rican Flag in the Discovery Shuttle and that he played "Que Bonita Bandera" while doing so. His pride in his heritage, makes me even prouder of mine. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm researching the history of the wiki entry for the 2006 Lebanon War for a college course and wanted to know your thoughts on the history of creating the article. You are the user with the third most edits for the article. I was wondering if you could give a little insight into the whole process:
What personal experiences, background, etc. has made you interested in editing the 2006 Lebanon War article?
Were you editing this specific pages as news was reported or did you turn to the discussion board before making direct changes?
What sort of page vandalism did you notice as the article progressed?
What was most upsetting about the edit wars going on with this page?
Do you think this article is a good example of neutrality?
A general interest in Military History, in particular asymmetrical warfare and on countering systemic bias, one of the things that attracted me to Wikipedia in the the first place (I was a member a year before the Lebanon War).
I am a firm believer in strong discussion, in particular where there is controversy. One of the things I learned was that discussing was not only important, but even when it seemed intractable and problematic, utterly necessary. I also learned the value of developing consensus in particular from people with obvious differences in real life: those of us willing to walk a mile on the other's shoes always win in the long run.
There were all kinds of vandalism, ranging from the political sloganeering, to the run-off-the-mill trollish. However, this article was the victim of what perhaps remains my favorite act of vandalism in Wikipedia ever:
The bad faith exhibited by many editors who tried to disrupt editing they felt contrary to their views, regardless of its value. I was also disappointed in the lack of community defense of the stated principles of the project, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. When this returns to a balance, I will abandon the WP:ARBPIA topics. It also has some issues with due weight of some sources. On the general sense it is a good article, but it is far from being a Featured Article. Unfortunately, even to this day it is still a focal point for controversy.
As generally understood in Wikipedia? For the most part, yes. I think it still has the systemic bias issue that NPOV adresses but the community takes as dead letter: the sources are overwhelmingly news based, from a western perspective, with significantly less Lebanese or Eastern voices than Israeli or Western voices. This in particular includes Lebanese and non-western sources critical of Hezbollah and its allies: this expresses a systemic bias that accepts as normative and unique the opposition voices from a single more or less monolothic perspective. Even the voices in support of Hezbollah tend to be academics from thousands of kilometer away, rather than the people closest to the conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed my answer. In short, since the issues are many, I wanted to engage more specifically on some issues and the move to others, and I did reply with two detailed sections, including a source analysis, in which you engaged. But regardless, there is no edit war, there is an anon IP engaging in disruptive editing and bad-faith edit summaries (the accusations of vandalism are beyond the pale), and some disingeniousness all around.
The way to resolve the dispute is to resolve the legitimate issues that have been brought forth, instead of claiming that the article is somehow of a high quality.
Furthermore, even if there is no active editing or discussion, as long the issues that lead to placing the tags remain, they deserve to be there. --Cerejota (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the Issues are a matter of personal perspective, for example you feel the article needs a globalize tag, yet i feel that is no longer valid. I personally think the article is of high quality, it well written and sourced certainly more so than the majority of articles on wikipedia, That is why i disagreed with you. As you said you have only really covered one issue not those in the other tags, and the majority of editors have disagreed with you on at least a few, and you yourself on reflection removed some, is i think there is some disingeniousness on your part, with the initial tagging of the article. Sherzo (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86.25.18*.*** as well? He/she is really on a very active and destructive streak at "history of terrorism." 100% assumption of bad faith toward me, as is self-evident from very numerous talk page comments and trollishly/abusively inaccurate edit summaries. I'm inexperienced in taking such a matter to administrative channels. What do you think I should do, if anything?Haberstr (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. RayTalk17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought it was time. I'll hold off replying to anything said there for as long as I can control myself, and hopefully we'll get some new opinions. RayTalk18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:
[[Category:Wikipedians]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]
I noticed your comment here. Calling another editor "a dick" constitutes a personal attack. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked for incivility. — JakeWartenberg12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. If you look it is linked in to WP:DUCK. A dick is a dick. Yeah, it something of a dickish move to call someone a dick, but it is far form a personal attack. Take to a noticeboard to be blocked. I find your "warning" unwarranted and in bad faith, specially in the circumstances (ie, another user also warned the !voter). I suggest you retract it, in the spirit of civility. --Cerejota (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The top of the essay you linked to states "It's okay to call a spade a spade — to speak plainly — but remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia." (emphasis added). I don't think that name calling is civil by anyone's definition of the word. WP:NPA is also policy, while WP:DUCK is an essay that may be heeded or not at an editor's discretion. I do not appreciate your being so dismissive of my concern, either (I am referring to this edit to my talk page). — JakeWartenberg18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am dismissive because you seem not to get how you are making things worse. Some of us have actually seen incivility, have actually defended the encyclopedia from egregiously nasty attacks, and I do not take it gracefully when someone who just wants to be an admin (oh noes! more janitors! less editors!) goes around acting self-important. I do not think calling someone a dick, when they are being dickish, is particulary uncivil. It might be dickish, but uncivil? You need to up that threshold a little bit... hence you get a trout. Try to partrol ANI a little bit more to get a sense of it. In other words, you are the first person who makes a big deal about calling someone a "dick" that I have seen in my nearly five years of active editing, and 7 years of reading this encyclopedia. Which, BTW, probably means I was around when you were barely in primary school. Just sayin'...--Cerejota (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he accused me of making a personal attack. There is a difference and you know it. One if a good faith exhoratation (if you can see, anothe ruser also made the same remark in the original page). Jake escalated by warning me in the talk page, and in the picture nomination. I respect you greatly, but I think you should see my point that this is a storm in a tea cup, caused by the uncalled for escalation. Get the puppies under control, or the grumpy old dogs might bark back ;).--Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Some grudge! BTW, Brewcrewer and I seldom agree on anything, but definitely he ripped you a new one on that. You see, respect is a two-way street. To get it, you got to give it. I find it very interesting that the original sarcastic and dickish remark has garnered no attention, but now my talk page is a circus of self-righteous anger towards me. Grow a thicker skin, and get back to editing. --Cerejota (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I thank you for being a good person in trying to stop the advertising. Now I would love to add more to the article because I want to also include some important parts to the page. So please let me finish up the page; I'm not at the least interested in advertising, but just talking about a farily good company. Now I have not finished the page yet so please "spare me" from losing the time I spent in it. :)
Thanks much,
Winner11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner11 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently in my talk page I have been receiving very kind words which truly humble me. I thank everyone for those words, but I am only a small part of a wonderful group of Boricua Wikipedians who, regardless of their political or personal believes, have selfishly dedicated themselves to writing about the unbiased truth of the history and the amazing people of our wonderful and beautiful island. I thank God everyday that there are people like Joelr31, Caribbean H.Q., Pr4ever, Jmundo, Cerejota, Boricuaeddie, Mtmelendez and Demf just to mention a few, whose contributions are helping to create an awareness that despite the size of our island, we are a people that have a lot to be proud of. I firmly believe "Un pueblo que no conoce la verdadera historia de su pasado, no esta capcitada para elijir su futuro" and you can quote me on that. Gracias y que Dios los bendiga. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Mira, I think this is a good article for DKY but I'm clueless when it comes to that process. If you think is worth the time maybe you can take it. Hope everything is well with you, --J.Mundo (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be less clueless: WP:DYK (gotta love the shortcut). Basically you need to expand it five times the size and within five days submit to DYK with a sourced "hook". Mind you, they have strict rules, so its best to wath the page for a while to see what gets approved and what doesn't. Also: I am fine a little busy in real life, with the economy etc, but fine, and you mi hermano?--Cerejota (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing the way. I'm fine, real life? I try to follow this economic advice "si te cielo te caen limones has limonada." Cuidate mi hermano, --J.Mundo (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question
Hi Cerejota, I created an article that I had been working on in my userspace and was wondering when I actually copied it to the mainspace should it have been moved to retain the history or not. Also, was thinking of making one of the DYK but not sure how to go about it (just did that, think I did it right). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no one other than yourself worked on it, you can copy and paste it, as essentially you are compressing your contribution into one as per the WP:GFDL. (edit conflict)As to how to go about doing DYKs, WP:DYK is pretty self explanatory (you can read on my thread with Jmundo above), but the key parts are "true" novelty, and having a catchy "hook". New articles with over 1,500 characters with a good hook almost always make DYK, its almost trivial.--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
confused at the strike through, you saying I can't do it or that I can. It was all my edits, though I took stuff from current articles as a base, you can see it here. Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You had already done it (right!) so the comment was irrelevant. I think this is in, it has a clear hook, its well sourced, article is new, and its not puffed.--Cerejota (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am a bit impatient, in fact I created the article prior to asking. And the urge to add insane amounts of puffery, such as replacing the words 'Michael Jordan' with a piped link saying 'the greatest NBA player of all time' and John Stockton and Karl Malone as the 'blp vio regarding whether or not he was a dirty or (1st and 2nd) dirtiest player of all time' was very difficult to resist. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As usual an interesting effort. My only comment is that it seems to be a summary article, probably better to transform most of its content into a navigation template, with a less heavily-sectioned article explaining "Civil defense" as applied to Israel. In the USA, the Civil Defense was changed to Emergency Management in the 1990s because of the end of the Cold War, but I was (as a scout) involved in EMA, so I have some knowledge of the field as a professional/academic field. I will sandbox what I mean in order to have it make sense, because this needs coverage. In other words, I think it has major MoS issues that affect is quality as an encyclopedic entry (nothing I can see in terms of NPOV etc, perhaps the lead needs some work). The reason I talk about this here and not article talk is because is new and can be shaped, and I want to make it a joint thing. --Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly supposed to be a skeleton that others can work on. I only wrote about a paragraph for each section because the research was very time consuming, but each section can be expanded respectably. Not sure yet what you mean by some of your other comments, but I'll check your sandbox. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcenroeucsb
Clerk note: In deciding whether a CheckUser is appropriate, we are guided (for cases A-E) by fairly clear information as to what needs to be alleged, and what evidence needs to be provided. For case F, the guiding principle is that we must be talking about behaviour that is at least as serious as that described for cases A-E. In all cases allegations must be accompanied by clear evidence, usually in the form of diffs. What we are looking for is clear and concise evidence, rather than a well argued and eloquent case. Whilst you make a clear and well argued case, it lacks concise and easy to use evidence, as links to alleged poor behaviour is in the form of hard links to a particular version of the page, rather than to diffs. In the absence of clearly presented evidence, CheckUser will be declined, and it is highly probable that the case will take significantly longer to resolve. Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added {{articleissues}} to this article a while back. I didn't agree with the claim it was essay-like, so I removed that straight away. I have now expanded the entry and dug up some references. The only thing that remains hard to sources are the exact events during BGT, but I'll keep working on that one. What do you think of the article now? - Mgm|(talk)09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FA Nomination: 2008 Mumbai attacks
I am nominating 2008 Mumbai attacks for FA-status, as it has improved since GA-status. Since you are one of the foremost contributors like me, I am just notifying you of this. If you have any objections, please contact me on my talk page or on the article's talk page. Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone22:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to ask you, given your interest in terror, what you thought about the map in Terrorist#History which is based on List of terrorist incidents, 2008, original research, synthesis, fatally flawed, (potentially) encyclopedic or what ? I'm not sure what I think about the map or the list....I love maps but not when their sourced from lists made by wiki editors. Sean.hoyland - talk12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall you being involved with James Lindsay when it was first posted. You were concerned it might not be notable but according to talk, we seem to have come to a reasonable consensus. Since then, the article has been improved but the article has been submitted for deletion. I ask you to read my comments in the AFD if you wish to offer an opinion. This isn't canvassing right?? Cheers! P.S: I posted the same message on Ceed's talk page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope you warn wf about what canvassing is (and this is precisely that) though I really wouldn't mind if you gave your opinion. Nableezy (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told this isn't canvassing. Alerting heavily-involved editors (i.e, NOT yourself) seems reasonable and I find no indication that goes against protocol. Plus, I forwarded the notice to all major contributors. Ceed (many battles with), Cerejota (same), Brew, Tundra, etc. I didn't cherry-pick editors who would probably endorse my POV. Perhaps you should look up canvassing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You posted to users who agreed, or at least appeared to, on this topic, I don't care what they disagree with you on. You selected a group of editors, who if heavily involved have the article on their watchlist and can see the AfD nom themselves, and asked them to get involved. That is canvassing. Nableezy (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. Cerejota wanted the article gone, Ceed is commonly involved in the Palestinian articles, Tundra is Tundra, Bree hasn't edited in over a month, and then there's me. I sent notices to almost every editor involved: Evidence. Of course, you would know that if you actually edited the article and/or possibly read it. Please strike your blatantly inaccurate post. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am a student in Seoul National University doing a research project on Wikipedia.
I am very impressed about your insight regarding Wikipedia. Reading your page,
I see you are truly concerned about the quality of Wikipedia articles,
and I appreciate your efforts to find reasonable alternatives.
I thought your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas could add quite a lot to my project.
So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail
or online messenger? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual editor,
and this will be of a great meaning. It will not take that long;
to Exodus from Lydda. In my opinion, it's a complete mess, with rampant use of bad sources, cherrypicking, weasel-wordage, etc. Exasperated, I told everybody that I was calling you in, as the neutral IP milhist guy, so they might be disappointed if you don't show up. Also, your best friend brewcrewer is there, so how can you say no? :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Threat of Puerto Rican Statehood
Cerejota, I stumbled on an article that I would like to share with you. As you know in Puerto Rico we are so concerned with the status situation and about what "we" want that we never stop to ask ourselves (some of us anyway) want is it that the average American wants and if they really want us. You know me, I am not a politician and even though I believe that Puerto Rico should be an independent nation, I am not involved in politics. I like to consider myself as a thinker who believes that the people in Puerto Rico should learn about their true history and the contributions which we have made to the world and what we are capabale of accomplishing before we can decide our political future. I also believe that with the anti-Hispanic sentiment that has always been present in the United States, our people should not be so naive as to believe that the citizens of the United States (non-Puerto Rican) would be willing to accept Puerto Rico as a state with open arms. We must ask ourselves, what does the average American (not politicians) really think of us becoming a state. Here is a slight glimpse as to what the average American citizen may think: The Threat of Puerto Rican Statehood. Enjoy, Tony the Marine (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I haven't seen you at the typical I/P articles for quite some time. Anyways, just wanted to post a little hello. : ) See ya around. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
When I first wrote the Flag of Puerto Rico article years ago, it was titled "The flags of Puerto Rico" and was intended to be just that, an article about the flags of Puerto Rico. However, with time someone (who made a mess with the edit history) came along and changed the title to the current one.
I am thinking of two options per consensus.
1. Leaving the current title, "spliting" the article, keeping only the story of the "Flag" and it's evolution and creating separate articles about the "municipal" and "political" flags and have them interwiklinked in the "See also" sections.
or ....
2. Changing the title back to "Flags of Puerto Rico", its original title and keeping the article as it is, which would be less troublesome.
I'm going to re-write and shorten some of the introduction. I'm going to start off with this opener which I believe sound just about right:
"The flags of Puerto Rico represent and in some cases symbolize the believes of it's people. The most common used flags of Puerto Rico are the current flag which represents the people of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, municipal flags which represent the different regions of the island, political flags which represent the political believes of the people and sports flags which identify Puerto Rico as the country represented by it's athletics during competitions."
I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F
1) Must have been a community member for at least four years or so. Sorry, but it does matter to me that you are a committed individual that have seen the growing pains.
2) Must know more than one language - WMF handles dozen of languages, and while the linguafranca is English, the intelligence and cultural awarness that comes with learning languages is very important. If someone is so incurious to not be a polyglot, I probably do not want in the board.
3) Their statement -lets see what they are saying.
4) Gender balance - Gave preference to the single female candidate. Call it affirmative action, but she meets the above criteria.
5) Non-angloamericans over angloamericans - Also affirmative action. Systemic bias needs to be countered at all levels. The internationalization of views and funding sources helps with that.
Candidates will probably not get a vote from me if they do not meet the first three criteria, with the third being a subjective evaluation (ie if I like, they get a vote). The fourth criteria is automatic #1 as there ar eno other female candidates. Criteria five means I vote for the non-angloamericans first. All things being equal its the statement that decides.
Actual vote
Kat Walsh (mindspillage)
Ting Chen (Wing)
Domas Mituzas (Midom)
Samuel Klein (Sj)
Ralph Potdevin (Aruspice)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (Cimon Avaro)
Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
The rest are "8", with two exceptions: The Far-right activist which is blank, and Relly Komaruzaman who did a really crappy statement and so got "9".
The vote was easy for Wing, who us the most solid candidate pound for pound, and Kat the only woman, but it was hard choosing the rest, but I do want to rank instead of blend the middle votes, because I do care.
The Far-right activist
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe (KevinOKeeffe) is a Far-right activist. But there is no way to not vote.
Nice balance. Only one question: Did you make sure that all the candidates you voted really gave reliable information? Because, as far as I am concerned, Aruspice's register was not in 2004 but in 2007. Furthermore, he was warned against giving such wrong information and still decided to keep it. This contradicts your criteria. I found Aruspice's behavior a little bit dishonest. He didn't even answer to most of the questions. Finally, a couple of users who you didn't include in your list speak at least more than two (even three) languages and have had the confidence of their communities. This is only my opinion, --79.145.23.234 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Cerejota. I respect your decision but I disagree with you in that: 1) you gave preference to candidates with at least four years of experience (however, Aruspice's register in 2007 doesn't meet this requirement); 2) there is at least one candidate who speaks over three languages (English being one of them). Since you shared with us your criteria, I would like to share mine with you. I strongly agree with you concerning both Relly and the extremist candidate. Nevertheless, when it comes to the Spanish candidate, I find his speech persuasive. I find it close to Wing's aims, indeed. There are some differences regarding language and short-time priorities but they have a similar POV. Both respect diversity, both advocate for small projects and both are dialogue defenders. With all this I want to say that I support Wing, Walsh, Klein and Gongora's candidacies because I find them reliable enough. Apart from this, in my opinion, a user doesn't need to be 4 years in a project in order to be really trustworthy. I know many users who have been blocked several times for disruptive behavior and all of them are supposed to have been involved with WM since 2004 or so. What I appreciate is someone who has been able to achieve the confidence of his/her community/ies. In this sense, an user who has been part of the ArbCom for one year, who has been administrator and bureaucrat for at least more than 2 years and who has recently been appointed as checkuser in another community, deserves all my consideration and respect. I know that perhaps I cannot be neutral because I am an active user on es.wiki but this is just my opinion, which doesn't intend to reflect a reality nor influence your wise and, as I said above, respected and personal decision. Kind regards from, MiguelAngel fotografo (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:G8 2009 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry so late in saying welcome!
I am really glad that you added the Article rescue squadron template to your user page, I am not sure if anyone welcomed you before, so I am taking the opportunity to welcome you now.
Please take a minute to sign your name to our list of 270+ members:
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
Hi, Cerejota/Archives, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
Sorry it took so long to say welcome, even though you had the box forever!
If there is anything I can do to help you out, please let me know. I have been here for 4 years now, so I know how things are supposed to work, and how they unfortunately really work :)Ikip (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to check out the fantastic pictures of old-Puerto Rico here: [12]. The good thing is that the majority of them are pre-1923, when there were no copyright laws and can be used by anyone in our project. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHATWikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and
StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
WINNINGS?
The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN
The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO
All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER
The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE
Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
just as advice, it would be a great deal easier to support that article if it were drastically trimmed, perhaps to a single photo, the main achievements listed only, and the details of who awarded him what removed, since they;'re in the references. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is use the first sentence of the 1898-1940 hystory as example.
One year after the United States invasion of the island, Dr. José Celso Barbosa embraced the idea of annexation as a U.S. state as a solution to the colonial situation and founded the Republican Party in 1899.
The specific proposal is replaced: "annexation" to "annexation as a U.S. state".
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Cerejota, you once gave your opinion in about this article in it's talk page. Therefore, I thought that might be interested in giving your opinion to the suggested idea that the tittle should be changed. See here: Talk:Isabel Gonzalez. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Book" namespace is deployed
Back in March 2009 you suggested we add a "Books:" namespace.
I am happy to inform you that the new "Book:" and "Book talk:" namespaces were added yesterday to the English Wikipedia and are now fully up and running.
To all my friends in Wikipedia. After so many years I have decided to take an extended leave from the project. My continued participation in the project has become less enjoyable as I have explained here. I thank God that I became involved in the project in the first place because not only have I used it to educate others, but I have also learned a lot from friends such as yourself. Try to maintain a high standard in your contributions and make sure that the truth is always told in what you write. I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year, may God Bless you and thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}