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.

Archive Map
Old Archives (pre-bot, up to somewhere in July 2007)
Year 2007
VII	VIII	IX	X
Year 2008
I	II	III		V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2009
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2010
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2011
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII

Archive for August 2009

Opinion request

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.

or ....

3. Just leave it as it is. Your thoughts will be highly appreciated. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I was WP:BOLD and changed it back to the original name. Que me caigan chinches, sin co***** me tiene ;) --Cerejota (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My brother, you have my 100% unconditional backing. It was the right thing to do. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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."

and work everything else into it. How does it sound to you? Tony the Marine (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Run a spell-checker ;), but besides that I like it.--Cerejota (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Election Need Your Feedback

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

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How I am voting on the 2009 WMF Board Foundation

Criteria

This is in descending order of importance.

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.

The PGP Hash

SPID: 1732

BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

hQIOAyJFW7mPGxLhEAf+PYKdSKJrj73iAwTFSPZn54gYA379zn/ZDMP20ypFkctK QWQpVU21OlLsijHD1Mxvsjp1v9Q9ji+ddGxWr9enrOV6UU7aG0ELKGJZO35KNFqK pvCqF0R3qZ7dRCzz1Snj9Kq3adWVuAy+YAhH174G+Wcj+shBF8+ueYom/JgkgsnE up7Qt9am5J1kXuAX5YP7adlMfIIQwpwzyCjfW+mbEndh0hWUl2lsgZ7D4648uPd0 Ewe0xIzQL8Os5X+XHr05FVD7cY1ybXGKFS9kyyiWOPGI3IgJiF/mKuABHCOodW/p XhvL503MLW2d+ZPJxdO0OHOCGqhbCoXmHHe/OKJ0uQf+K2VazOI2mYWAwOCr8sXe Zf3BvYnfHqDk9zBwVnrK2jKYZHG9mMBJWghyiLQvAfDS7PNMRcseVbW7loOvWSes v6MnrGVrKhXstwZ9OgohoQhWYhAYWoRK+fmfhNlZ3M6pAac6PrZeEzC4xuOXLLqW 8rad+D0ev6sj7fYXNbFMqAktJd6KvYUvoC6N7j4kib7COMpCr6swLDyNH2Beq1Jd JpvxyU5YGYR5UmFd2B7G620KNkroXuZdAJOZPkKEB/cvg7sX3MeRBl1yA2aUSUgN 1XqqU9WcWjdfYAENxp+df/bTRQn3sEW3GrO4/UzgiNrG4SosHE1NIOEQWeDgMtJw WtLpAcgeYgfUok9daphqbFO7vHzpjwqWWK7s5CM+Oc7hBCPcqIRj2S+f1WxTxybE W3xymn1ambmPplz9GFN8uBUynih8dwW2DxLwsLwESn1rGpVwcR2VqmD59Qh24icc zsiKC1dSAV/mdMCdfQEy/PM19T+yT3B3VI0RicTKnZK+BwiYaIzV0p+DMC7kOBeA XKS9SphQwKeXUD1aQaBSqnpzfakRRwTO2y2DlC8SEbK6etnK03ZNrlXSU9POEMew pvfoLVtgKvZ72yMtmeFPd8YRcNCONRyNUr+OlP2o8XqHvI7ECMAe/QSPRgc08E7Q m/AepEpnqTbDdR/em1Sg6uJQP+vaYkVkq/hzHq3k2Eq1MR4evB007dX+w8F9eF2d osVdKn5HW8qQZXdJXryycGXhziW8zRJCA3fusem2xfylIZQuix4MmuaACCwO4/0r WcsHrTOvLoMGONPXK9AZy/xOg4a0s9QZXKbAhFKLbEYR9Xoe7A0oadB5iwveeR4H 69kPL5DgsDV8OuSjEr5gDmQjAc3D43Q4bA7xGgkZqWBgQglkr0ClXZH/+dgqkKHl GC5OrGvEa19j+wNmuFaQhjrpZs43Gz4jvzj7lDKRS0a2vfHg2lL8qRkx1VXEiVOC CuhvOIAdPVPCBV2HEau+Qc+4wzDO08sr4pqaxvbubXImqPa2iocQAu0WASQCv7DA pTmpFn95nGtyFLjZXDL1L6Uc885zYoRcJqXwWq30nV+AtHITvqDRRiUjF5dVZD/E g52bGWrETZYlAGtHZbE4QEneMhqBcDuapCuAXC8HWKU/+4Laab8WP29rDU2cj3sL lkU3CQvN0pbB8l0hGLmJIVGsRCdgElu4zgAatawqsBzuvk8vCg8Tgee1Fx7F01Hu bikzw+CJ7+9G95Pt43FvhwP5xDtEUCD3X64= =QHZ4

END PGP MESSAGE-----

Thanks for reading. --Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

ANI stuff

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Facebook_event_to_recruit_Arab_and_Muslim_editors_to_contribute_to_the_Gaza_War_article. Why ? Well, if you look at the 3rd paragraph starting 'A year and half ago' for some reason brewcrewer has decided to use 2 diffs linking to comments you made. I thought someone should let you know. Personally I thought it was a very odd decision given that Tundrabuggy was subsequently identified as being a returning banned CAMERA group editor. Anyway, whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:G8 2009 logo.png)

⚠
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:

Wikipedia:ARSM#All_Members

Good news, we are building our first newsletter and should sent out this weekend, keep an eye out for it!

And a warm welcome to the squadron!

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found

Hi, Cerejota/Archives/2009, 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!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you for the warm welcome ;)--Cerejota (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to see you soon. Best wishes, have a great weekend. Ikip (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic pictures

You have got to check out the fantastic pictures of old-Puerto Rico here: [1]. 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]