Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 22 July 2006

Chavez

Hi Superflanker, I think you're doing a really good job on the Hugo Chavez page. Although I drop in to comment infrequently, it's on my watchlist and I follow the changes as much as I can. Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I try my best SuperFlanker 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reference fixes !

SuperFlanker, thanks so much for fixing the references on some of my last edits. I was lost in editing, suddenly saw the time, was very late, and had to dash out for a committment, so didn't have time to doublecheck my final work. Thanks again :-) Sandy 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem SuperFlanker 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Referencing mechanism

Flanker, I saw you were struggling with the referencing mechanism. Maybe you've already figured it out, but unless you're using a particular reference more than one time, you don't have to give the source a name, although Enano did name them all when he converted them. If you do choose to name a reference, then you can use that reference name if you have to again reference the same source, later in the article. So, for references used more than once, naming them saves time, but for references used once, you don't have to name them. I went through the article yesterday, checking for duplicate references, and fixed them all. I'm sure that explanation probably only confused you worse. Maybe this explanation will help. Saludos, Sandy 01:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I thought I had a hang of it with the Harvard references and then things changed ;) I sorta have a hang of it now I believe, thanks Flanker 01:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Harvard system that Enano used named every source, regardless of whether it was used once or not, and takes up a ton of space in the article. I'd like to replace them all, as I find time, to make the article easier to edit. I'm still having a hard time with how long it takes diffs to load, which makes it hard to check for vandalism. On the other hand, the article seems to have the participation of a lot of good vandal fighters, who catch things quickly. Sandy 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Been a pleasure working with you on Hugo Chávez

SuperFlanker, I just want to say it has really been a pleasure to work with you, and the civility and respect that existed throughout our attempts to improve the article were appreciated. Needless to say, I will not likely ever put so much work into Misplaced Pages, if weeks of effort, consensus, and civility can be so easily erased by the rude and uncivil, in violation of everything that Misplaced Pages allegedly represents. Saludos, Sandy 17:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Words not to use

Even if it is found it is against policy (corrected link) Flanker 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to give an example you might understand. If Larry King, Dan Rather, George Bush, Tony Blair, Vicente Fox, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly or Joe Bloe (Fulano de Tal) said, "Chávez is an extreme left winger", it would not necessarily be against policy to indicate that person X had said that, just because it's on a list of words that Wiki editors shouldn't use. The comment may not be worthy of adding to the article, but the policy you are (mis)quoting would not preclude adding it if it were a verifiable statement from a reliable source. If the editor provided a reference, we could all come to consensus about whether the statement merited inclusion, in the form of X person said Y, or Chávez has been described as ... The policy you are quoting is about words Wiki editors shouldn't use in describing someone. It is not about verifiable statements from reliable sources describing someone else. It is incorrect to dismiss the statment above out of hand, particularly not even knowing if it comes from a valid source (unlike the preponderance of biased sources currently used to reference this article). You cannot rewrite Wiki policies in such a way that the entire and balanced story about Chávez cannot be told. Sandy 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

This image is going to be deleated in 7 day. http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Su37_2.jpg. If you dont add where you got it and what the copyright status. --SkyWalker 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Economic policy rewrite

Despite all the recent commotion, are you still working on it? If you locate all of your sources, I can help you spruce it up a bit. -- WGee 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am waiting a bit for the main source to finish migrating to their new website, might start anytime this week. I will let you know.Flanker 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. -- WGee 02:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mission Barrio Adentro

As one of the editors presently working on the Hugo Chavez article, I wondered if you could take a look at the above page. I'm interested in the lower section - as it crosses into one of my editing areas - including Healthcare of Cuba. I wondered if you could add any comments to the Mission Barrio Adentro talk page, I'm interested in what kind of response people have to the material presented as it may need some work.--Zleitzen 03:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Chavez

I'm very sorry to see the direction you've taken on Criticism of Hugo Chávez. Having the backing of other editors doesn't make it right to POV the articles: that goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages; the same spirit we collaborated with so well for a long time. Finding increasingly extreme ways to keep neutral content out of Misplaced Pages is not in the spirit of Wiki. Sandy 00:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I argue, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez may very well be the most POV article in all of those related to the topic, and it has nothing to do with the name. All of this was inevitable Sandy, that article had to go through the same rigorous standard of the mother article, all that has changed was the starting point and that the decision was taken today instead of god knows the mother article was finished.Flanker 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I argue, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez may very well be the most POV article in all of those related to the topic, and it has nothing to do with the name. All of this was inevitable Sandy, that article had to go through the same rigorous standard of the mother article, all that has changed was the starting point and that the decision was taken today instead of god knows the mother article was finished.Flanker 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's OK with you, we'll keep the conversation in one place: I'll check your talk page, so we don't have to go back and forth. You are making justifications and rationalizations for not allowing NPOVing of the articles. The Criticism content was more strenously referenced than the original article, because most of Saravask's old content is still not referenced. Everything new we added to Criticism was well referenced, and you know that as well as I do. You may be able to argue it was a POV fork, but then you have to allow for the content to be merged back to the main article, where it started. I do feel that my good faith was taken advantage of, as it was I who willingly moved content to Criticism, which you have now blanked. This is not good faith editing, and the departure from Wiki policies grows more extreme by the day. Sandy 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not take advantage of your good faith. The rules changed Sandy. Had you not summarized the critiscism section I would have deleted it along with the critiscism article and we would have started from scratch. The summary and the effort to do so at least left us with a stub. The article now has to followed what I said before, it must conform to what they say about Chavez explicitly, meaning no more inuendos, or guilt by association (the Castro quote), the BBVA corruption link might be next since the sources are not up to standard, and it is not sugar coating since the AN investigation faulted Michelena. The standards for criticism and the prose of that critiscism has been raised to increadibly high standards.Flanker 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, those were always the standards, and none of the new content violated it. On the other hand, a lot of the old (Saravask version) content was not referenced. Just because YOU learned something new, don't assume the rest of us weren't following it all along. Please restore the content, or we will have to take this dispute to a higher level. Sandy 03:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

You have accused me, in this edit summary, of vandalism and retaliation because I removed an unreferenced statement from the article to the talk page for discussion. I will excuse the personal attack this time, in the hope that it was not intended. Please don't accuse me of vandalism again, and please try to resume good faith. Sandy 22:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The prose was referenced, conforms to WP:RS and does not violate WP:BLP please do not remove. You want to debate it fine in the talk page, but your deletion is not conducive to an encyclopedia.Flanker 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That it conforms to WP:RS is highly debatable, which is why it was removed to the talk page. That is not the point. Please refrain from accusing others of vandalism when making legitimate edits, or your edit summaries could be interpreted as personal attacks. Thank you, Sandy 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack Sandy, so please do not take it personally, you are not approaching this with a cool head. If the vandalism was considered a personal attack fine I apologize and take it back, however the removal cannot be allowed.Flanker 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I could accept your apology, but you have just done it for the third time. This is your third warning now to refrain from attacking my character or motives or good faith editing. I am not vandalizing, I am not retaliating, and I am certainly calm. As you know, we've had conversations before about your attempts to paint me as hysterical, and I will not accept any more personal attack characterizations, either on talk page or in edit summaries. Please refrain from describing me as retaliating or vandalizing in edit summaries, and please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine. I am certainly calm, and expect these personal attacks to stop. Sandy 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A Reflexion on BLP and the 2004 RR

This BLP debate reminds me of the 2004 Recall Referendum: everybody agreed it had to be done but nobody knew how to to it. Now I understand better all this mess before Aug 2004. JRSP 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine, but the selectivity on who it applies to is too much, All I ask is that the accusation/attacks singles out Chavez/MCM specifically and says what the article says about him (no creative licence) but that is too much it seems.Flanker 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)