Revision as of 05:57, 15 January 2010 editDASHBot (talk | contribs)318,263 edits Automated Message: Unreferenced BLPs error?← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:17, 29 January 2010 edit undoErebedhel (talk | contribs)1,320 edits Ryan's talk pageNext edit → | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
# ] - <small>{{findsources|Joel Sánchez (Peruvian footballer)}}</small> | # ] - <small>{{findsources|Joel Sánchez (Peruvian footballer)}}</small> | ||
Thanks!--] (]) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | Thanks!--] (]) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
==Ryan's talk page== | |||
I don't consider correct to have a threaded discussion on Ryan's talk page so I'll move it here: | |||
---- | |||
I'll not continue this conversation on Ryan's for respect but I'll point out something. Both of us have Workshops ] - ], precisely for this purpose. I have plenty of observations about MarshalN20's version but I, for respect, keep my opinions till the mediation starts. What is disrespectful is that attitude of criticizing something that isn't even finished, unlike MarshalN20, I clearly put a '''warning sign''' at the top of my page saying so, I respectfully abstained myself from editing the page and not trying to "buy edit counts" doing microeditions like a dog trying to mark his territory. And above all what is more disrespectful is that tone like if he pretended to "lecture" me about ethics and neutrality while what he has been is precisely pushing his irrational hatred towards a country that have never done any harm to him, calling Bolivians ignorants and trying to nullify its entire culture by pushing fringe theories and ranting out of proportion while this could be a simple case of ]. I'm sorry for disturbing your talk page but sadly my patience is gone, I tried by all means to stay calm towards this person's attitude but I had enough.<span style="font-family:'Maiandra GD';padding:1px;border:solid 2px #966;background-color:#C96">'''] - ]'''</span> 16:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
:You're now calling me a "dog" that "buy edit counts." Wow. Seriously? That's what what you call respect? | |||
:All you've done thus far is insult me. Do you really think that is going to solve the problem? I don't need to put a "warning" sign to my sandbox page because, quite obviously, it is a sandbox that doesn't even have "Diablada" anywhere on the title. | |||
:What irrational hatred? I already apologized for my comments posted long ago in the talk page of the article. The "edit counts" you call my edits on the article are simple minor changes, the most important one being moving the bibliography section upwards (But, apparently, that shows my "hatred" for Bolivians). | |||
:Moreover, thus far you keep showing a systematic bias towards Bolivia. Your "workshop" article is completely made in favor of Bolivia. Just by simply reading the introduction the reader can tell that the article is biased. Why don't you want to understand that what you are doing is unethical? | |||
:Finally, I don't care if your patience is gone. I have already asked, politely, for you to quit insulting me; focus on the material and not the editor. I propose, as I have done in the past, to work together in the article rather than to argue over it. Neutrality is the solution, but you don't want to accept it.--] | ] 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
::If that offends you then I apologize but I seriously consider that we should just leave the article alone till Ryan finds time, is just common courtesy. Besides I never received an apology for your offensive comments, in the 5 months I've been dealing with you I never insulted you I just asked you to address me with respect and you didn't so don't play the victim now. | |||
::You think my article is in favour of Bolivia, I think your article is in favour of Peru. Mediation is meant to find a middle point. My article is not finished as I said, what I did was compile the information I have to explain it later, that's what workshops are meant for. | |||
::Regarding the warning sing I'm not asking you to put one, but I do ask you to '''read''' mine and not take conclusions if it's not on the main article you don't have any reason to complain. Besides the lead in both versions is overly long I'll abridge it when I finish it. | |||
::Finally why don't you read what ] really means, it doesn't have anything to do with what you're saying. It just says that some countries have more contributors, e.g USA, and they have more articles. And I consider that your concept of ''ethics'' is not clear to you, why don't take a look on all the articles in ], under your perspective all of them would be "unethical". | |||
::I appreciate your last paragraph, even though I said the words "I have already asked, politely, for you to quit insulting me; focus on the material and not the editor" several times in the past to you and I really don't appreciate your last sentence, e.g. take a look at the you quoted before, it says: | |||
::"El Ministerio de Culturas de Bolivia aclaró que La Diablada es uno de los íconos más importantes del Carnaval de Oruro, declarado como Obra Maestra y Patrimonio Oral e Intangible de la Humanidad por la Unesco en 2001. | |||
::En tanto analistas peruanos dicen que 'La Diablada' es desde hace siglos una manifestación cultural que comparten Perú y Bolivia en la zona altiplánica fronteriza y que incluso se puede observar también en el norte de Argentina y hasta en Ecuador." | |||
::"Ethically" you should mention that those who consider the Diablada belongs to all those places are "the Peruvian analysts" and not hide the information regarding the Cultures Ministry. Neutrality consists in presenting both sides not only one. | |||
::I hope that now that we called Ryan's attention he hopefully will officially start with the mediation, I believe he just forgot to watchlist the page, but meanwhile I'll work in my Workshop and you on yours and I suggest to avoid any unnecessary confrontation. <span style="font-family:'Maiandra GD';padding:1px;border:solid 2px #966;background-color:#C96">'''] - ]'''</span> 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:17, 29 January 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
Mapa
Hellow, I would like to ask you for help. Usaer Clocac insist in that this map I made is no presentable on wikipedia. I dont know what to do, first I corrected Tumbes as Peruvian and now he goes on to insist on that other thing are wrong also. It is extrmely difficult or i mpossible to establish a really accurate map, since boder treaties in that time were unprecise and disputed. Would you like to "correct" the map? Plaese consired also that Ecuador had claims on what is now the Peruvian Amazon. Or you perhaps thinks (as I do) that the map is good enougth to be on the article Chincha Islands War, because that article is not about the Peru--Ecuador border but of a Spanish neo-colonial war. Dentren | 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Zambrano
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Carlos Zambrano. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation do's and don'ts, you should:
- Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
- Use short sentence fragment descriptions, which should not end with punctuation
- Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry, and avoid red links
- Not pipe links—keep the full title of the article visible
Edits are not vandalism simply because they come from IPs. The article on the baseball player was at the plain title until a few days ago, without dispute. If you continue to press this issue without discussion, I will have the baseball player's page moved back through WP:RM per standard procedure as a controversial move. 210.161.33.186 (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted
I'm glad to know that finally a formal Sockpuppet Investigation has been conducted (I hope that BozMo is properly informed about the result as I wouldn't like him to distrust me). I now understand that the timing of my appearance was probably not the best and was one of the reasons of why we had such a rough start. I also apologize for the RfC I now consider it wasn't the best thing to do and I hope that we can leave that aside after it's closed during this weekend. I also hope that the mediation cabal could help us finish this dispute, meanwhile I can't get back in time but I promise that none of my actions in the future will be in an aggressive or hostile way but I still consider that the article can be perfected and could have more information. I've been reading WP:TRUTH which is funny essay about most Wikipedians conduct and I think we both fell into that. I consider that WP:NPOV is a complex matter and I think it'd be a good idea to read the extensive information about it available on Misplaced Pages and use the correct tools for dispute resolution in a friendly and peaceful way. I'm reading this week the following manuals, perhaps you'd like to read them as well so we can talk about the same things next week without entering in any bitter argument again:
Those aren't policies but only advices written by other Wikipedians to improve the quality of articles so please don't think that if I mention them it's any kind of accusation or anything like that.
Best regards --Erebedhel - Talk 00:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Carlos Zambrano
On reflection, I am starting to agree with you that there should be a disambiguation page, because there is no clear primary topic. You haven't made this easy, because of the arrogant and offensive way you stated your views here. Your argument boils down to saying that soccer is more popular than baseball, therefore any soccer player must be more important than any baseball player. This is utter nonsense; I don't think many Venezuelans would agree with you. But that's not the point; the point is that both of these persons are reasonably well-known within their respective sports, and it is probably impossible for either of their articles to meet the primary topic standard.
I also think you are way out of line to change the redirect while the WP:RM discussion is still open; any changes should wait until that discussion is completed. Your latest change is particularly disruptive; did you even look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Carlos Zambrano to see how many links you would be breaking by redirecting to the soccer player? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Formal Mediation as next step after Mediation Cabal
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Diablada has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Diablada and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Thank you, Erebedhel - Talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
I think there is a misunderstanding
Formal Mediation main objective is to try to isolate the user conduct problem and focus only in content, the "Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted" is only to list the steps the filling party (i.e. me) followed before requesting a Formal Mediation it's supposed to be only a brief list and not a discussion. If we don't follow the format required, the request will be denied. Could you please remove then and bring your concerns through the correct channels? I'm only asking you to sing:
#Agree. ~~~~
in Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Diablada#Parties' agreement to mediate and in the discussion just follow the steps and address exclusively to the content.
Thank you --Erebedhel - Talk 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Actually if you please you can move them to the talk page is just a matter of format. --Erebedhel - Talk 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Diablada.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
presidential election, 2009
Hello there is dispute going on Talk:Chilean presidential election, 2009 about the image of Sebastián Piñera would you mind to give your opinion? Dentren | 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello MarshalN20! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Miguel Company - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Joel Sánchez (Peruvian footballer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ryan's talk page
I don't consider correct to have a threaded discussion on Ryan's talk page so I'll move it here:
I'll not continue this conversation on Ryan's for respect but I'll point out something. Both of us have Workshops User:MarshalN20/Sandbox - User:Erebedhel/Workshop, precisely for this purpose. I have plenty of observations about MarshalN20's version but I, for respect, keep my opinions till the mediation starts. What is disrespectful is that attitude of criticizing something that isn't even finished, unlike MarshalN20, I clearly put a warning sign at the top of my page saying so, I respectfully abstained myself from editing the page and not trying to "buy edit counts" doing microeditions like a dog trying to mark his territory. And above all what is more disrespectful is that tone like if he pretended to "lecture" me about ethics and neutrality while what he has been is precisely pushing his irrational hatred towards a country that have never done any harm to him, calling Bolivians ignorants and trying to nullify its entire culture by pushing fringe theories and ranting out of proportion while this could be a simple case of WP:NOTLEX. I'm sorry for disturbing your talk page but sadly my patience is gone, I tried by all means to stay calm towards this person's attitude but I had enough.Erebedhel - Talk 16:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're now calling me a "dog" that "buy edit counts." Wow. Seriously? That's what what you call respect?
- All you've done thus far is insult me. Do you really think that is going to solve the problem? I don't need to put a "warning" sign to my sandbox page because, quite obviously, it is a sandbox that doesn't even have "Diablada" anywhere on the title.
- What irrational hatred? I already apologized for my comments posted long ago in the talk page of the article. The "edit counts" you call my edits on the article are simple minor changes, the most important one being moving the bibliography section upwards (But, apparently, that shows my "hatred" for Bolivians).
- Moreover, thus far you keep showing a systematic bias towards Bolivia. Your "workshop" article is completely made in favor of Bolivia. Just by simply reading the introduction the reader can tell that the article is biased. Why don't you want to understand that what you are doing is unethical?
- Finally, I don't care if your patience is gone. I have already asked, politely, for you to quit insulting me; focus on the material and not the editor. I propose, as I have done in the past, to work together in the article rather than to argue over it. Neutrality is the solution, but you don't want to accept it.--MarshalN20 | 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- If that offends you then I apologize but I seriously consider that we should just leave the article alone till Ryan finds time, is just common courtesy. Besides I never received an apology for your offensive comments, in the 5 months I've been dealing with you I never insulted you I just asked you to address me with respect and you didn't so don't play the victim now.
- You think my article is in favour of Bolivia, I think your article is in favour of Peru. Mediation is meant to find a middle point. My article is not finished as I said, what I did was compile the information I have to explain it later, that's what workshops are meant for.
- Regarding the warning sing I'm not asking you to put one, but I do ask you to read mine and not take conclusions if it's not on the main article you don't have any reason to complain. Besides the lead in both versions is overly long I'll abridge it when I finish it.
- Finally why don't you read what systematic bias really means, it doesn't have anything to do with what you're saying. It just says that some countries have more contributors, e.g USA, and they have more articles. And I consider that your concept of ethics is not clear to you, why don't take a look on all the articles in Category:Peruvian culture, under your perspective all of them would be "unethical".
- I appreciate your last paragraph, even though I said the words "I have already asked, politely, for you to quit insulting me; focus on the material and not the editor" several times in the past to you and I really don't appreciate your last sentence, e.g. take a look at the Honduran nwewspaper you quoted before, it says:
- "El Ministerio de Culturas de Bolivia aclaró que La Diablada es uno de los íconos más importantes del Carnaval de Oruro, declarado como Obra Maestra y Patrimonio Oral e Intangible de la Humanidad por la Unesco en 2001.
- En tanto analistas peruanos dicen que 'La Diablada' es desde hace siglos una manifestación cultural que comparten Perú y Bolivia en la zona altiplánica fronteriza y que incluso se puede observar también en el norte de Argentina y hasta en Ecuador."
- "Ethically" you should mention that those who consider the Diablada belongs to all those places are "the Peruvian analysts" and not hide the information regarding the Cultures Ministry. Neutrality consists in presenting both sides not only one.
- I hope that now that we called Ryan's attention he hopefully will officially start with the mediation, I believe he just forgot to watchlist the page, but meanwhile I'll work in my Workshop and you on yours and I suggest to avoid any unnecessary confrontation. Erebedhel - Talk 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)