User talk:Agrofe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Agrofe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reina

The matter is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reina (cattle). My primary concern about the article is that it comes across as about a 'new breed' of cattle that has only come from a single farmer selectively breeding for a couple of generations. Has anyone written about the cattle before? Wikipedia has a policy that everything written must be verifiable, and not original research. J Milburn 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Just a quick note in case you didn't see it at the AfD discussion that there's another article about the reina available at http://www-ni.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2003/junio/23/campoyagro/ that should also contain some info you can use for this article. I think the fact that the species has been called a "patrimonio nacional" is interesting and should help convince folks that it's notable. Thanks for your contributions and looking forward to seeing this article develop! GassyGuy 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't up to me to remove it, we have to wait until an admin closes the discussion. Good luck with the article, feel free to contact me if I can be of any help. J Milburn 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:La Reina (Cattle).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:La Reina (Cattle).jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicaragua Edit

Thank you for your recent edit to Nicaragua. I reinstated that section becuase I thought deletion was too extreme. Your changes provide a nice middle ground. Cheers. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 14:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bacanaleranica Comment

Hello, i have provided newspaper sources that are recent and reliable THIS IS NOT MY POINT OF VIEW! here are the article so you can read them yourself!: http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/12nicaragua http://www.counterpunch.org/bail01202007.html http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Nicaragua

by the way the tourism section in "Nicaragua" doesnt even have any sources and you post that... the "SAFETY" section is not from a neutral point of view but from a site that promotes tourism in that country... THE WIKIPEDIA RULE STATES ALL ARTICLES MUST COME FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW AND OBVIOUSLY NOT EVEN YOU FOLLOW THESE RULES! it says newspapers are welcome now everything i posted i didnt say or write the newspaper did so i dont know if your a new worker or something but learn to do your job right because the WIKIPEDIA RULES ARE SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO! so leave my sections alone because it looks like i know the rules better than you do... and if this is goin to become a problem i would like to get more information and possibly speak to the owner of the site and make the BIGGEST COMPLAIN ON HOW UNACCURATE THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ARE and that is a FACT!

Hi Bacanaleranica, please go to the discussion page for Nicaragua and let's come to a common ground on the Nicaragua Saftey piece. I look forward to collaborating with you. --Agrofe 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicaragua Edits

Hi, i notice your trying to read solid grounds with the user and you edits were good but you mentioned Nicaragua was the second poorest country in the wester hemisphere, it was, its not before. Some sources say that Haiti and Honduras are and others say Honduras, Haiti and Bolivia are.
LaNicoya 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Lanicoya, Thanks for the comments. I think you mean that Nicaragua might not be the second poorest after Haiti anymore? You could be correct as I have seen some conflicting figures. I wonder if anyone really knows?... Does the World Bank have these statistics? By the way, I am a bit concerned that this article is second rate because of some of the ongoing conflict and constant reediting by some users. What do you think?--Agrofe 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi! Yes, thats what i meant. When i updated the statistics on the Economy of Nicaragua article i noticed Honduras ranked right after Nicaragua, and I've seen other sources say Bolivia and Honduras (including Haiti on both points) ranked under Nicaragua. I could get you the pages if you wish.

I'm also concerned. I don't consider myself anything superior to anyone which is how that user makes me seem. I do know there is crime and corruption, but then again, thats everywhere regardless of how much GDP a country has, am i right? Because the article is part of the Central American project i don't think there should be a crime section for only 1 country, and if someone decides to put their time in, i suggest all countrys have one. I thought it was unfair for Nicaragua to be the only one with a tourism section (which is not longer there) so im working on one for Honduras right now, and Nicaragua also.
LaNicoya 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

nicaragua is still amongs the poorest its haiti, honduras, nicaragua, bolivia check the cia world fact book they are accurateBacanaleranica 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

an encyclopedia isnt suppose to have a tourism section, a crime section, or an abortion section use as an example other encyclopedias that were made by real professionals none of them contain things that volunteers want to post. You want to make this a good encyclopedia then use others as an example so it can be good a nd reliable because right now i wouldnt recommend this encyclopedia to anyone so lets all be professional about this lets not play favorites on countries just because volunteers are from nicaragua and colombia those articles will be the best and el salvador and costa rica the worst wich by the way need alot of work el salvador needs improvement more things about tourism with good sources like a tourism website like the one used for nicaragua and costa rica its the tourist capital of central america it defenetly needs a tourism section if we are going to all break the encyclopedia rules we might as well put in a tourism section even though a real encyclopedia isnt supposed to have oneBacanaleranica 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Bacanaleranica, thanks for the comments. So we don't take up too much space or upset anyone can we try to stay focused? Perhaps we should look at a well established article like the USA or Germany to get some ideas of what the contents and sections should be? You are correct that the CIA Fact Book shows that Nicaragua is the third poorest country in the western Hemisphere after Honduras & Haiti. SHould we amend the economy section to show this? I look forwatd to your feedback. --Agrofe 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some random checking and Costa Rica, East Timor, France, Germany and Kenya do not have tourism sections. Namibia do have a tourism section. None of the above have crime sections. Brazil has a section called "Social Issues" that has a subsection called Poverty and Inequality". Most seem to have a culture section. Does tourism belong here?

Also, I do not see any issues with tackling articles one at a time. Why can't we all put our heads together to come up with a common ground. I have moved this conversation to the talk page in the Nicaragua article so eveyone can participate.--Agrofe 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Baseball?

Is baseball american? I would check but for some odd reason i can't use any search engine. Well, you should put something in your sports section about how Nicaraguans call baseball "Boer" and its the number 1 sport over there. They have this saying "Viva el Boer". I would get sources but.. like i said i can't use google :(
LaNicoya 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi LaNicoya, yes, baseball is definately American. Isn'tBoer a team? I think it is the National Team of Nicaragua. I will try to get a list of the teams to put up there. I will add the #1 sport (if you don't first :-) )--Agrofe 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. I found this "Baseball came to Nicaragua in the late nineteenth century..." Nicaragua's first team, founded in 1891, was called the "Managua Base-Ball Club.." "In 1905, U.S. Consul Carter Donaldson sponsored a new team named "Boer," after the..." [1] (fourth paragraph down)

I found an interesting article saying Viva El Boer meant 'Down with Somoza' a while ago, im not sure if this is true, but then again i probably wasn't alive when/if it was true. Ill look for it later.
LaNicoya 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UglyRipe & Grape Tomato

Hi Rkitko, I wanted to see if you could help me with these articles (for selfish reasons :-)). I don't know if you can help so sorry if I am in the wrong place. These entries need to be more objective and have some citing. I am a bit green :-) to this but believe that this material is notable and encyclpopedic. Any thoughts?--Agrofe 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! I'd love to try and help, but I have to admit I'm not much of a horticulturalist. My main focus is plant anatomy and taxonomy in a few genera. But I can direct you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. You can ask there to see if anyone is willing to put in some time on the article. You're right that it looks notable. There are plenty of articles on varieties, cultivars, and brand names of horticulturally signficant plants. Best thing of all is to be bold and go at it yourself. Check out your library and see what you can find on this subject. If you can't find a reference for the offending passages like "some say," then remove them (you can copy and paste them to the talk page to be searched for later if you want, too). Review WP:CITE and WP:V for information on verifiability and citing sources. I try to use print sources (books, journal articles, newspaper, etc.) rather than websites because the "authority" of a website is so often disputed with a select few exceptions. But go at it and see what you can come up with. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:

And read its critics: [2] ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Keep Up the Good Work

Thanks. I cleaned up the Nicaragua article a bit and added sources, i just can't seem to make the political/history section a bit shorter.. I re-read it about 20 times and everything looks like it belongs, not to mention how unorganized the main history page for Nicaragua is.
LaNicoya 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion Tags

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.--Proofreader J-Man 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I did not remove any tags. I added the text "Speedy Delete" in the body of an article I created after I saw it was already in Wikipedia. --Agrofe 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I apologize if there was some confusion on this. When I looked at the article (which has since been deleted, so I can't go back and check for sure), there were three entries in the history: your original entry, then an edit by another person who added the speedy delete (e.g., db-nnnn) tag, which creates the pink box on the article, then yours, which blanked the page (including the speedy delete tag) and added the words "Speedy Delete." It's entirely possible that the last two actions were done in very close proximity to each other, and perhaps you thought you were just blanking the original page, not the page as modified by the tag. In any event, please review the speedy deletion procedures to see how the tags work; if you want to recommend something for speedy deletion in the future, the tags are the way to go. --Proofreader J-Man 03:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No apology required. I need to learn the deletion process. Thanks for getting back to me on it. Regards--Agrofe 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factory farming image

Hi Agrofe, thanks for your note. My problem with that page is that it tries to paint a positive picture of factory farming, right down to not calling it that! :-) So I feel we need to add some more realistic or critical material. My understanding is that gestation stalls for sows are very common. Are you saying that's wrong? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for getting back. There was definately huge bias in the article (I hope a bit less now since my rough rework). The article should definately not paint industrial ag/factory farming in a positive (or negative light) but should present "what it actually is". We can work on this.
I certainly have no aversion to referring to the content as factory farming, they both (IA or FF) conote the same thing to me and I would think most agriculturalists also feel the same regardless of their leanings. The only drawback I see to the term factory farming is that it seems to me a bit provincial or sophomoric. I am ambivilent though and think the two terms should be intermingled throughout. If it appeared I was trying to diminish the usage of FF in the content then it was not intentional.
With regards to the gestation question, yes, these stalls are certainly common. But the size and environment can vary largely and certainly the current photo portrays the aboslute smallest and most restrictive systems. Thanks for the prompt response. Please let us know your thoughts. --Agrofe 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Agrofe, thanks for your note. I'll take a look as soon as I have time. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you could weigh in on the current back-and-forth with regard to the factory farming images.Jav43 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replied

Hi there, replied to your comment on my discussion page.. Feel free to add your thoughts. NathanLee 02:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied too.Jav43 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions wanted - Factory farm article

Hi, can you please comment on here. This is to resolve the revert issues to unlock the page. cheers, NathanLee 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factory farming RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/factory_farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Jav43 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Speedy deletion of The Fools

A tag has been placed on The Fools, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Closedmouth 07:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:071027-07.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:071027-06.jpg. The copy called Image:071027-06.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of The Fools (band)

A tag has been placed on The Fools (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Yamanbaiia (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for helping out on the Boston English article. 208.104.45.20 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fools (band)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Fools (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Fools (band). Rjd0060 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: The Fools (band)

I am not "driven" to do anything. Please, assume good faith. The issues I've addressed in the PROD box are valid, and those issues are reason for deletion. I PROD'ed it for a reason; to give the article a chance for improvement. You are welcome to address the concerns that I've tagged the article for. - Rjd0060 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zgorzelec

I think it's already made clear in the first paragraph and in the history section of the article that it was formerly a part of Gorlitz. I don't think that information needs to go in the first line as well. It certainly isn't "formerly Gorlitz" since Gorlitz still exists, on the other side of the river..--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kieran Murphy (businessman)‎, Nicasol‎

You have placed PRODs on these articles and then somehow listed them in today's Articles for deletion log, in fact placing them in the article for Stowic poetry. Proposed deletions are different from nominations for deletion so I'm not sure what you were trying to do in order to fix it for you, but as this impacted on the existing nominations I have removed your text. Ros0709 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ros0709, I was trying to nominate them for deletion. Sorry for the confusion and messing up the other deletion peice. I was not sure how to do it correctly and tried to learn how by doing (I think tqice next time). I stumbled across the articles and they do not belong in Wikipedia. Can you help me here?--Agrofe (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The process is included here, along with detail about speedy deletion tags (which may have been appropriate in this instance) and Proposals for deletion, which you have used. Now that you have proposed them for deletion you could consider just letting this run its course. Anyone, including the author of the article, can remove the prod notices if they disagree in which case you probably would nominate for deletion, but if nobody does the nomination is considered unchallenged and the article deleted after 5 days. Note that if you do nominate for deletion it would be useful to explicitly cite the policy/policies which the article fails to meet; good starting points for reading here, if you are not familiar with these pages already, would be WP:N and WP:V. Ros0709 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AfD

Hey there -- prod is probably not the right tag here. Best thing is to read up on how WP:AfD works and nominate it there if you feel strongly. Sdedeo (tips) 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey again -- I think you didn't complete the AfD process for Seth Abramson; you need to follow all the steps listed on WP:AfD in order for the discussion to go forward. Do read up and fix things; I'll remove the template in a few days otherwise (assuming you've withdrawn the request.) Sdedeo (tips) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ortega

Hey, do you think we should cite this. I think the previous is better simply because its more general. Adding the controversial bit, although true, begs for a specific citation. Am I being too picky? Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be me being too picky. I think the way it is now is more objective but I could be wrong. I just think that "socialist policies and "internal dissent" is a bit controversial and perhaps negative. There are many people out there that would argue that they were Marxist policies or, on the other hand, non-socialist/communist altogether. "Internal dissent" maybe could be expanded upon and clarified. What do you think?--Agrofe (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)