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/2009. 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.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Reply to your comments
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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[2] 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
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
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
Re: Aduri
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
WP:BATMAN
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.'
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
What was wrong
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 this
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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]]
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
