Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 24 September 2009

Likeminas is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Please read this

If you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list – My response will be placed here, unless, you request otherwise.

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page.

This will make it easier for both of us to keep everything in context.
ThanksLikeminas (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Template:Archive box collapsible

Liberalism

I noticed that you restored an edit to the Liberalism article that is under discussion at Talk:Liberalism#Changes to the lead. It would be helpful if you would join this discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I should've done that, instead of reverting right away. I will correct it. Likeminas (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Latin America

Thanks for your caution. It is ironic, however, that the reverting editors are reverting without comment or providing a substantial reason, so it makes little sense to discuss when they will not expand as to why. It is clear that they are doing so due to incomplete English comprehension, sociopolitical POV pushing, ignorance, or any-all of the above. Besides, much of the content in that recently added section is unsourced, so perhaps it should be done away with anyway. 69.158.58.56 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

TY. 69.158.58.56 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Chilean Fiestas Patrias

Thanks for the comment. I'll be adding material from the Chilean entry throughout the day (I just added the section on Food and Fondas) and I appreciate your review of the new content. Also, there aren't any citations in the original article. If you have time to find citations for the article, that would be great. RG (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Clilean articles

First, Allende's presidency ended with his suicide, not the coupe.Second, Pinochet's government was confirmed democratically before failing in the later plebiscite. To say anything else is a violation of NPOV. Please see talk page--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also request that you refrain from accustaions of vandalism, which is a personal attack WP:NPA.I have left edit summaries and explained my rationale for the edits. For more information on vandalism, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTVAND before bandying around such bad faithed accusations ( or implications).--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Letting you know that deleting sourced content as you did here is not a personal attack. It's actually making you aware of a very well established policy. My advice to you is to take the time to read WP:NPA, WP:IDONTLIKE, and WP:RS. By the way, and for future reference, please use the talk page of the relevant article, not mine. Thanks. Likeminas (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have used the talkpage. This was also used to discuss your accusation of vandalism and POV pushing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggstion. Could we at least agree that the book report doesn´t belong?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Which one? Likeminas (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The summary you left saying to unclutter. The book report is the Irish Times.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can leave that one out since there are other sources that seem to be more authoritative. In regards to the note, I saw it somewhere but I'm not sure how to do it. Do you know? Likeminas (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront has it. I know cause I looked at the other fellow´s edits.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, perhaps you might speak to your coeditor, Frank Pais. His attacks have been downright personal. I reacted poorly to them, and have struck them, but his continued baiting will do nothing to improve the article. If you don´t feel comfortable, then ni modo--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm That's not what I actually meant. I saw an article where several sources where placed under one single note. I think I'll ask in the help desk.

I also saw what you wrote on Frank's talk page, and yes that was way more contentious than whatever he said about your user ID. I will intercede on the talk page of the article but only to discuss content. Likeminas (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough . He had also come to my talkpage and introduced family. But thanks anyway.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to each of your sources individually on the talkpage. When you get a minute, please respond there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much time to play games with you. But if claim the sources to be unreliable and whatever that nonesense of confusing the person with the regime means, take it to the RSN board and/or NPOV board. Let me know what they tell you, ok?

By the way, please stop wiki-stalking me. It's just wacky. Likeminas (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it is your page, I´ll ignore the attack. I do have a Chilean connection. You aren´t the only one in the world with one. If you feel that you are being "stalked" then go to the appropriate board. You should know the difference between OR and what a source says. I will take it up on the RS board tomorrow. Que descanse y que sueñe usted con los angelitos.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet

Hey, nice work with the Pinochet article, *maybe* we could use those references for the spanish wiki article? Please answer in my talk page, I don't watch the enwiki often, thanks.--Kmaster (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet references

Someone posted that you can't do what you want to, if you didn't go back there after than discouraging advice, I wanted you to know I have a solution, let me know if this helps.

Here's an example I just worked with the first paragraph of the Pinochet article. The word "fascist" had eight references. I used the new citation style as documented in wp:LDR, and separated each of the references by a line feed. (I also converted the website references to the proper citation style, although I don't know whether the publisher of Google Books references should be Google Book or the publisher of the book).

It isn't beautiful, but it removes the ugliness from the main text, and makes it reasonably clear that the citation is made up of multiple references.

I also added bullet points—does that add or detract?--SPhilbrickT 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great. I knew it could be done. Thanks a lot for taking the time, I appreciate it. Likeminas (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I also posted at the Pinochet talk page.--SPhilbrickT 13:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting

You have convinced me. Such removal may constitute vandalism. You have fought hard to convince me, and now see to be backing off. What gives?--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced content is vandalism, not a portal to make a point.Likeminas (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No point. I'm converted. He was a vile fascist. What is your objection?--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, It is sourced, by you.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Just beware that this kind of behavior might get you blocked. Likeminas (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your threatening and belligerent behavior is beginning to frighten me. Please note that the friendly notice, transparent, open, and neutrally worded is not canvassing. Please just accept that your argument has proven convincing and that a fascist should be linked to the portal.--Die4Dixie (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet

Thanks very much, I might do that (re: reporting Die4Dixie). Very good work, BTW, on the Pinochet article. Frank Pais (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Chile under Allende and Chile under Pinochet

Hello, Im thinking in the possibility of renaming these articles to "Unidad Popular government" (or "Chile during the Unidad Popular governmnet" or something similar) and "Military government (Chile)" or something similar because I believe the present names on these articles put to much emphasis on the figures of Allende and Pinochet and does not reflect the fact that both were part of larger political structures. "Chile under Allende" sounds like if Allende was behind all policies and actions of his government, while in fact the UP goverment was born from a broad social base and ground level politcal activism rathern than from top to bottom. With so many social movement being affiliated or behind the government it is misleading to say Chile under Allende.

The same applies to Chile under Pinochet, Pinochet was never "a personalist" like (excuse me the comparisons) Stalin, Castro or Perón. Pinochet did not had absolute power over government by him self, rather the junta ruled the country. Of course Pinochet was the "heaviest one" there but to atribute everything to him is wrong, many Chicago boys for example were behind the so famous economic policies of the government rather than Pinochet. If we see the Spanish wikipedia they have and article called Régimen Militar rather than Gobierno de Pinochet.

Well, Im asking about your opinion because I suspect a proposal to move it could cause a large debate.Dentren | 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dentren, I'd suggest posting this message on each of the article's talk page, wait for about 1 week to get input and then take it from there.

I wouldn't have any objections in regards to your first suggestion, namely moving Chile under Allende to Unidad Popular government as it was the only government of its kind in Chile. Now moving Chile under Pinochet to Military government (Chile) is tricker as it has not been the only military government the country has ever had.

Lastly, in regards to the claim that Pinochet didn't have absolute power, I would quote him once En este país no se mueve una sola hoja sin que yo lo sepa I assume he wouldn't say that for no reason, but I might be wrong. Likeminas (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Likeminas

I'm currently taking a break from anything related to Keysanger. I can't stand the lad. If I ever see him in person, well, let's just say he better hope to never wander into my sight. lol.

Like I told you before, I was truly interested in improving the War of the Pacific article. I wanted to present all point of views in the matter (Chilean, Peruvian, and Bolivian), and also the international views of other countries across the globe. I was actually interested in all of the information we ended up bringing to the article, particularly the information I found on Great Britain and the information that you found about the United States (Isn't it amazing how these 2 countries manipulated Peru and Chile to destroy each other?). It was quite a productive competition (One side brought their information, the other side brought more information).

Now, the article is a disaster. Keysanger has essentially, and pardon my language, "raped" the article. It's really a shame. All your information, my information, and even the information of Arafael has been twisted or eliminated. I don't want to see that article again as it disgusts me. It's almost as if we had all built this house from the bottom, and suddenly one person comes along and completely changes it to their liking. It's not fair; but there's not much that can be done.

Anyways, now I'm focusing on my studies again. I'll soon be getting my degrees in history and economics in a few years. I'm still editing Misplaced Pages from time to time, but my focus is by now only on sports (football mainly) and a few articles related to Peru. I hope to see you around Misplaced Pages again, and if you need any help feel free to contact me.

Best Regards.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)