Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 22, 2005 and November 23, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.
See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Contents

Template of presidents is wrong

The template with the list of all the presdients' names that is at the bottom is very wrong. Many of the name are not listed well. Let me explain a bit first and for this lets use the example of Chavez. As we know his name is Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. When talking about him by a single name, we use Chavez. Now, lets asume he didn't had a middle name or just decided not to use it and thus people would know him as Hugo Chavez Frias. He would still be Chavez. You wouldn't call him Frias or write his last name as Frias in the template. Well, exactly this is what has happened with the names of many presidents in the template. I assume this is because in the anglo-saxon world people are used only to first name, middle name and last name. Whereas in Venezuela people -though the legal name will always have both parents names) they can use any combination of first name, middle name, last name (father's) and second last name (from mother) when it comes to telling people how they want to be called. The only two that are always used as a minimum are the first name and the father's last name. Thus Chavez could have made himself known as any of these: Hugo Chavez, Hugo Rafael Chavez, Hugo Chavez Frias, or Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. But regardless of that he would always be Chavez. In some cases, you have to list the second word of his name and in others the third one to capture his last name. Now, in the template many names appear wrong. For example: Antonio Guzman Blanco should not be Blanco but instead Guzman or Guzman Blanco. Luis Herrera Campins now appears as Campins and that is wrong. It should be Herrerera or Herrera Campins. The same happens in many more cases. A few that are also wrong: Perez Jimenez, Lopez Contreras, Medina Angarita, and a bunch more. Surprisingly, whoever made the template got Carmona right and didn't put his name as Estanga. --Anagnorisis 09:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who made that template. Other than the few examples you pointed out, I do not know which other ones are wrong. So, you should go enter "Template:VEpresidents" into the search box and take a few seconds to correct them. Then you will know how to edit other templates. Meanwhile, I will put an edit link into the box. Saravask 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I will try doing it tomorrow. Yes, it is difficult for anyone who is not used to the names in Venezuela to know which is really the one last name to use, as some people like writing both their last names (often when the father's is very common, like Perez). Thus for those from overseas, it is difficult to know for sure if the last word in the name (when using 3) is the father's last name (if using the middle name) or the mother's (if not using middle name but using the mother's one following the father's). --Anagnorisis 04:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I just added the edit link. I'm sorry I havn't been putting in many changes into this article. I've just become numbed down with theHugo Chavez and his politics. Let me know also if you want to include the information on his middle name origins (I know you've been reverted at least twice now for some reason). Saravask 05:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Anagnorisis. I see you've corrected the problems. Saravask 05:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I think I did all. But not sure. Did it in a bit of a rush. I shorten some from the way they were normally referred to in spoken language locally to keep it to 4 rows: for example Lopez Contreras is rarely called plain Lopez and Perez Jimenez is never called Perez. As to Chavez name, I do not care so much about it, but I think it is a good way to bring into the article the fact his father was a supporter of the Caldera and the COPEI party (the father even got to be the local hot-shot for his state at the ministry of education during one of COPEI's governments). Otherwise people have no way to read about the political inclinations of his family. Now, I think it is really relevant to emphasize him being raised all his childhood by his frandmother and his attachment to her, in detriment of his mother. --Anagnorisis 06:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Corrections that need to be made (suggested by Anagnorisis, and first sent to Saravask)

(I wrote this below thinking of posting it in the article's discussion page. But thought that maybe better to leave it here - or else people may think I am now criticizing the article. I may now try to make some of the changes I mention)

Although the article has (in my opinion) a slight pro-Chavez slant, I think it is difficult reducing it without then giving it a slight anti-Chavez slant. Why? Because given the recency of the events mentioned and the passions that Chavez generate, at some moment or the other, the people writing the article will have to assume as true what either the supporters or the detractors of Chavez claim. For example, the Bolivarian missions. What are they really for? What have they really achieved? Depending of who you ask, you will get different responses. Now, having said this, I think the following is to be done to correct some factual errors and reduce a bit the pro-Chavez slant and some factual errors (I am not sure yet if I will try to make these corrections myself - would inform here if I do):

  1. Mention in the first sentence where it is said what Chavez is known for, that it is also due to his folkloric (or peculiar, or coloquial, or whatever else you want to call it) public speaking style.
  2. Delete "... and numbers among the mestizos and mulattos of central Venezuela's llanos." as it was not as relevant to him being first elected as now the chavista movement wants to make it look. Venezuela has had mestizo leaders before Chavez. Prior Venezuelan governments didn't discriminate in any way against mestizos (most of the population is mestizo anyway).
  3. Though it is true that his house was built with 'palms' (which was not uncommon at the time in the area), it was not a "hut". It was a proper "house."
  4. Chavez was not the only brother to move to live with his grand mother (as the article now says). He moved along with his elder brother Adan.
  5. Where it says that he was 8th in his class, mention that the class size was of 75 people.
  6. I do not know of Chavez being decorated in any way beyond what is normal. I would remove the sentence "Chávez was heavily decorated throughout his military career.[12]" Besides, the source is from his official bio in a government website, and it only mentions what he was awarded but it doesn't say that amounts to a lot. Thus they could even amount to less than what his peers got.
      • I'm going to remove the word "heavily", so that it will read "Chavez was decorated throughout his military career". Saravask 05:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm ... I think that doesn't amount to saying much. I cannot think of a single military guy that hasn't been decorated in one way or the other for something. All the military always carry some colorful stuff in their chests. --Anagnorisis 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess. Makes sense. I removed the whole sentence. Saravask 06:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. The article says "Chávez launched a February 4, 1992 coup d'état with a squad of MBR-200 conspirators." Saying that he launched it suggests that he was the unequivocal leader of the coup. Now, 13 years after the coup attempt, many things are still not clear about that event. One of them, who was the real leader behind it. Of course Chavez became the poster boy of the coup but that was due to him surrendering first and being put on live TV. I would modify that sentence to say that he participated in the coup, but not that he launched it.
  2. Article says Chavez agenda " drew heavily on Bolivarianism." I would change this to say "drew heavily on what Chavez called Bolivarianism."
  3. Where it says "... charisma and oratory skills ..." make it say "... charisma and very peculiar oratory skills ..."
  4. I am not sure about saying Chavez is leading transformation in the world at large. I would tone down this sentence a bit (first sentence in the Presidency (1999–present) section.
  5. There is nothing novel about Chavez attempting "to shore up an FDI influx to stern ...." All former presidents have done the same.
  6. It is not correct to say that Chavez wanted to complete the nationalization of the country's oil resources. They have long before Chavez been nationalized. The tone is misleading when saying the foreign oil companies have benefited with little taxes in the tens of billions of dollar revenues they have been earning. They do pay taxes under a different scheme and these agreements are relatively recent. The national oil company decided to concentrate on the wells with the highest margins and decided to allow forign companies to try recover oil from low-yield old wells; kind of an "We will allow you trying to get something out of those old oil wells if you want, and we will share anything you get, but you make all the investment."
  7. Regarding the 1999 election where there is mention of Chavez widespread popularity, I would point out that a lot of it was due to him being so much anti-old establishment. Note that Caldera had already won the previous presidential (before Chavez) based on the same theme. Being anti AD and anti Copei were big drawers at the time.
  8. The presidential term was increased from 5 to six years (not from 4 to 6).
  9. Chavez never challenged Venezuelan oligarchy's control over petroleum resources (as the article says), because they never controlled them. Oil resources have always been under government control.
  10. Though the article mentions that inflation was 12% in 2001, it fails to say that it was 31% and 27% in the following two years.
  11. The article doesn't mention that the all the Bolivarian missions make a regular payment to those that enroll in any of them. Many people manage to earn an income by enrolling in more than one at the same time. Critics argue that by giving money away like this, what they basically do is to buy support for Chavez.

Ok, this for now. I will continue later checking for things to reduce the pro-Chavez slant. However, I think that I prefer the article having a subtle pro-Chavez slant than an anti-Chavez one. This way, it may probably be vandalized less. --Anagnorisis 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that you are starting to make some of the edits. I had started to make some. I will stop so that we don't bump into each other at the same time. I will check for other things later. By the way, I have found some interesting info about his earlier life. I may sent some of it your way with information on the source. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Got your latest message. Thanks. I will chek the edits later. BTW, I am going to send you some to the email adress you gave me bits and pieces of information from the book I am reading. Perhaps you can incorporate some things into the article. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 01:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that the fact that some of the missions make payments to is enrollees is not in dispute between the opposition and the government (as it sounds now in the article). It is a well known fact. What is in dispute is the motivation, the effectiveness and basically the whole philosophical rational behind those payments as a way to improve the life of the poor in the long run. Of course, the poor are very happy, but critics claim this is a short lived stop-gap measure for the near future as the missions are not programs that pay the individual over long periods of time. Some fear what happen when the missions run their course as people get used to receiving easy money for just attending some classes. --Anagnorisis 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Stupid readers

user:Silence said while editing that "This section, and several others, still need a heck of a lot of cleaning up and clarifying if readers are going to understand what's being said.." I feel for what Silence says as it means that those that supported the article are either an intellectual minority that are not in touch with the "less smart" majority of readers, or that they are just as stupid and supported an article that they did not understand. Silence, please keep up the good work and continue "cleaning up and clarifying," and make this an article the pleb can understand. Thanks for helping those not blessed with being smart to understand this article recently selected as FA. By the way Silence, if I come across as being sarcastic or silly in any of my comments, please do not take it personally as an indication of disrespect, malice, or mockery; it is purely intended to keep a light-hearted air in all things. So, don't be offended please. Cheers. :-) --Anagnorisis 21:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • "I feel for what Silence says as it means that those that supported the article are either an intellectual minority that are not in touch with the "less smart" majority of readers," — Far from it. I highly doubt that more than 3 of the voters read the entire article, especially the text further into the article. All Wikipedia articles tend to degrade in subtle ways as they get further and further from the most frequented parts of the article (generally the top); that's why I'm not stopping my copyedit at just the first few paragraphs of the article, even though the vast majority of visitors to this page won't bother with much beyond that.
  • "or that they are just as stupid and supported an article that they did not understand." — Not at all. Why are you suggesting that people have to be either stupid or elitist to vote for FAing an imperfect article (as if there was any other kind)? I've seen over a hundred Featured Articles with mediocre writing, poorly-Wikified text, and dozens and dozens of typos, especially the longer, historically-focused ones. Featured Articles don't have to be perfect; all FAs have flaws to be improved. That an article is exceptionally good doesn't mean that it doesn't have a lot to improve. You seem to think that somehow becoming an FA makes an article immune to criticism, or that making any serious attempt to point out a flaw in it is an insult to everyone who supported or worked on the article. The opposite is the case. FA articles should be more heavily criticized than normal articles, because they have to be held to much higher standards, and pointing out flaws, when valid, is an attempt to help and better inform the editors.
  • "Silence, please keep up the good work and continue "cleaning up and clarifying," and make this an article the pleb can understand." — Certainly. But I have my limits too. Especially in the parts of this article that I don't fully understand. :)
  • "Thanks for helping those not blessed with being smart to understand this article recently selected as FA." — What are you trying to imply? You're the one who brought up intelligence as an issue, not me. I said that parts of the article need clarifying "if readers are going to understand what's being said" — for the same reason that articles like evolution need clarifying! Not because readers are stupid, but because we shouldn't assume that readers already know much of what we're telling them. Parts of this article read more like a summary of events to help remind people already-acquainted with Chavez of exactly what happened at various points in time, rather than like an encyclopedia article introducing information for the first time. And I'll improve the parts like that wherever I can, but much of it will take more expertise than I have to explain various concepts and event chains to the laypeople. An excellent example is the above conversation I had where I couldn't figure out what this article was trying to say about Chavez becoming popular for a two-word catchphrase rather than for attempting to overthrow the government in a coup, and a very effective explanation was given to me that helped me gain a much better understanding of it—the type of explanation this article needs a bit more of.
  • "By the way Silence, if I come across as being sarcastic or silly in any of my comments, please do not take it personally as an indication of disrespect, malice, or mockery; it is purely intended to keep a light-hearted air in all things." — You cut me to the bone. Clearly you've read my user page. Well played, good sir. -Silence 22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow! What a lenghty retort -thought certainly a very clean and clear one. Thanks for your comments Silence. I hope your cleaning and clearing of the article would not mean lenghty diatribes as one could perhaps wrongly infer from your reply above. I will try to keep my comments here short, though I often tend to write more than what I end up actually saying. :-) Basically I think most of your edits make sense (hey! I said most, not all), making the balance of them all very positive. However, while still keeping your usual wit and humor, you could still perhapa let out a bit more of that light-hearted air, while try not to let out what could be missunderstood for a condescending or haughty undertone. I know you mean well, so ... as you say, try to do more of the "taking Wikipedia seriously, without acting seriously." ;-) Cheers. --Anagnorisis 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was considering trying to do an in-depth, very lengthy analysis of the current article text we have now and where things need to be clarified, because such a thing would obviously be easier to implement corrections to than a general statement of a few sections needing clarification—but since your sarcastic comments make it clear that you have a deep loathing for long comments ("lengthy diatribes", as you put it), I won't waste the great amount of time that such an endeavor would require. I'll just focus on making the corrections I can make, and cut down on suggestions for important ways the article needs to be improved in the future; if you guys aren't able to do it on your own, the article will have to wait for the many future editors it will inevitably accumulate.
    • But I'll stop, since you also don't seem to be interested in any type of serious discussion at this point, and since you find my generally criticizing any part of the article to be "haughty". Clearly not the most constructive conversation. But, here's what you want: *honks a clown horn and rides in circles on a unicycle for a minute* Anyway, back to work. -Silence 23:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ouch! A bit sensitive aren't we? And you are the one saying that some things for us (the others) are touchy. Ironic eh? And here I was naively believing you had that sense of humor you so much took care of explaining in your user page. So much you even went to the trouble of telling people there how they should read and understand what you say (!?). However, seems you are the one who fails to actually understand the same tones when they are thrown back at you ... even failing to notice the presence of emoticons -yes, some of us use them, instead of lenghty explanations in our pages (afterall people do not read them tha often), when we think those in the other side may perhaps not get it ;-)). Seems to me it may be more what you wish you were and not what you actually are. I admit being wrong and actually believing what you said in your page. Thus thought you could take the kind of comment you say you like to make. My mistake. Solly. Now you say you do not want to do A or B? Fine. Up to you. Or is it that you are expecting some here to go beg you please not to do as you now are threatening to do: deprive us of your prose. Oh no! Please, how are we gonna do without them? C'mon, get real! Take a bath, relax, go release some fluids and then come back and write your diatribes -btw, did I say I didn't like them? Actually, I do like them -all that is missing is a little more humility, like that shown by ..... me! ;-)) Cheers. --Anagnorisis 00:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Ouch! A bit sensitive aren't we?" - Being repeatedly insulted, mocked, and slandered with inaccurate distortions of what I've said can do that me. :) Everyone's got their limits; I can't help being annoyed when someone goes out of their way to attempt to do so, but I can at least try to have the decency not to retaliate with more of the same. So that's what I do.
  • "And you are the one saying that some things for us (the others) are touchy. Ironic eh?" - You are touchy. If you weren't, why would you have been so offended just because I made a single edit to remove a word? You and Saravask both felt the need to not only post both here and to my User page repeatedly just because I'd removed a meaningless word (which you apparently agreed with removing, else you could have just reverted it), but also felt the need to warn me off of interfering again when you added a different word elsewhere in that paragraph. What are you afraid of? If you disagree with a change I make, you can easily revert it and bring the matter up on the Talk page; no need to be so scared of anyone editing anything you've added or worked on.
  • "Ironic eh? And here I was naively believing you had that sense of humor you so much took care of explaining in your user page." - Having a sense of humor doesn't mean finding everything funny. It means finding funny things funny. :)
  • But your venemously sardonic wording and tone make it clear that there's something deeply bothering you that you aren't mentioning, else you wouldn't keep sarcastically referencing my user page in criticizing me; what is it about my user page that offends you? Does it just bother you that even though I mention often doing and saying silly things on my User page, I don't spend 100% of my time goofing off and never make any serious criticisms on Wikipedia? You should know that I'm a two-sided individual. I love art, beauty, and madness, but I also love logic, reason, and order; I can be both ridiculously absurd and painstakingly serious. I find sticking to only one personality boring; the one I use right now around here is just the one I've chosen to most efficiently improve the Hugo Chavez article. When I get the chance, I'll try to insert some more ha-ha for your benefit, since you've requested it, but it won't be my top priority, I'm sorry to say. I'll also try to add some more emoticons for your benefit; I've been cutting down lately (though I used some above which you apparently didn't notice due to a lack of gaudy, bright yellow interjections), but for you, anything. :f
  • "So much you even went to the trouble of telling people there how they should read and understand what you say (!?)." - .. Would you prefer that I told them not to read and understand what I say? I don't see the point of your complaints.
  • "However, seems you are the one who fails to actually understand the same tones when they are thrown back at you ..." - I've never used the tone you're using right now on Wikipedia. I've satirized people's comments before, but usually more subtly and with a lot less bitter spite (see Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster). Using aggressive, pointed sarcasm (your current tone) and being a bit silly (a tone I often use, in other situations) are not synonyms.
  • "even failing to notice the presence of emoticons" - How could I fail to notice them? They're like giant christmas tree lights dangling from your speech. You do realize that ":-)" faces are just as often, if not more often, used as sardonic, mocking faces than just as icons of happiness or indications that you're joking, right? And having a jocular, sarcastic manner hardly means that you can't also express plenty of hostility, as you've demonstrated nicely.
  • "-yes, some of us use them, instead of lenghty explanations in our pages" - Um. In case you haven't noticed, I use both. :)
  • "when we think those in the other side may perhaps not get it ;-))." - No, I got from the beginning that you were launching a loaded sarcastic attack on me in response to a mistaken interpretation of an innocent, honest comment I made after carefully reading a large portion of the article—probably partly spurred by the natural indignation anyone feels upon having something they care about or have worked on criticized, even when the criticism if valid. The ascii faces weren't necessary to drive the point home, though they certainly didn't hurt in conveying the mocking air you were going for.
  • "Seems to me it may be more what you wish you were and not what you actually are." - Not really. There are a lot of things I wish I was that I'm not, because I'm something of a failure of a human being, but having a tendency to goof off at times is not one of them. I wrote that in response to several people misunderstanding jokes I'd made as serious on several Talk pages, to help prevent some people from taking jokes I'd made too seriously; I didn't write it to imply that everything I say everywhere is a joke, just that when I do seem to be acting too flippantly, it shouldn't be taken insultingly, as no harm is meant. If anything, I've avoided behaving that way here largely because I didn't want to risk offending anyone unnecessarily; if you think I'm arrogant even when I'm being perfectly frank and serious, imagine how arrogant you'd think I was if I added your bitingly sarcastic, smugly ironic tone to what I was saying!
  • "I admit being wrong and actually believing what you said in your page. Thus thought you could take the kind of comment you say you like to make. My mistake." - No, your mistake was in assuming that all forms and expressions of humor or sarcasm are exactly identical, and that occasionally interjecting smiley faces can magically make everything all better even when your comments are clearly inflammatory. Your mistake was not in believing what I'd said in my user page—nothing you've said so far indicates that you did ever believe what I said in my user page; rather, you misunderstood what I'd said there, and, seeing that I wasn't being as silly as you expected me to be on this Talk page, and/or offended that I would dare to actually try to explain to people the motives behind some of my behavior so that they know where I'm coming from, you decided to try taking it out on my on this Talk page, presumably to "teach me a lesson" by "giving me some of my own medicine". You wanted to get back at me for daring to criticize the article you've worked so hard on and improved so much, so you read through my User Page, found some ammunition to use, and came here to unload it on me. Then when I responded, you couldn't handle reading more than four lines of text and criticized me for "lengthy diatribes"—as you will no doubt do again in your response to this comment, ignoring the entire content of what I've actually said a second time. How useful. :f
  • "Or is it that you are expecting some here to go beg you please not to do as you now are threatening to do: deprive us of your prose." - Certainly not. I said that I wasn't going to do it, so I'm not going to do it. I'll still continue to make improvements to the article, and I'll still point out when there's a problem with it that I can't easily solve myself, but I'm not going to take the time to make some big "diatribe" explaining exactly where various sections need some clarification. Hopefully someone will figure out how to make the necessary changes himself someday; for now, some occasional confusion will have to do, and I'll fix what I can.
  • "Oh no! Please, how are we gonna do without them? C'mon, get real! Take a bath, relax, go release some fluids and then come back and write your diatribes" - Yay, more insults. You're the only one here who has yet written any "diatribes" (a diatribe is a bitter, abusive denunciation, not just "a really long block of text" as you seem to think it is), and I have no interest in doing so in any case, as I've already said; there are plenty of other fixes to be made first, so I'll worry about doing major clarification on large portions of the text after the elements I can directly and immediately fix have largely been corrected. Hopefully some of that will also be fixed when the article appears on the main page, especially near the top of the article (since this is such a long article, expect almost all the edits to be to the early sections).
  • "-btw, did I say I didn't like them? Actually, I do like them -all that is missing is a little more humility, like that shown by ..... me! ;-)) Cheers." - Heh. You're good at ending your comments on a properly self-deprecating, witty note, which makes me happy. Too bad the rest of your last couple of comments have to have been so caustic. And, sorry to disappoint, but I have little more interest in being humble than in being arrogant. Just as being arrogant is going out of my way to look superior or self-important, being humble is going out of my way to look submissive and meek. I have no interest in going out of my way to do either; what you seem to think is "arrogance" is really just a lack of humility, it seems: you don't object to my unduly praising or promoting myself, because I haven't done so; you object is to my not going to great lengths to show how lowly and modest I am! My purpose here is to improve the Chavez article, not to look good; if I come across as an asshole because I don't add "But that's just my opinion, I'm sorry if I offended you with anything I said, please feel free to reject any of my criticisms if you disagree with them" to everything I say, then I'm sorry, but it's just more efficient that way, and all of that information should be assumed with anything I (or anyone else) says anyway: if you disagree with any suggestions I give, please feel 100% free to dispute them and explain why you think I'm wrong. But making accusations of personality flaws doesn't benefit the article, and I'll continue to strive for the virtue of realistic assessments rather than leaning towards either of the sinful extremes of "humility" (as unrealistic self-abasement) or "pride" (as unrealistic self-promotion). :)
  • For my part, I'll do my best to be a have a bit more delicacy and diplomacy in what I say (even though political correctness doesn't come naturally to me, I'm blunt by nature) and try not to offend you again; and for your part, please have the decency to just come out and say when you have a problem with me, rather than burying it in a mountain of caustic sarcasm. Straightforwardness is a much quicker and easy way to resolve disputes. And remember that being bitterly ironic and backhanded in what you're saying is not "lightening the mood"; if anything, it's doing the opposite. "Lightening the mood" is occasionally interjecting the absurd when things get too stale or intense and people need to keep things in perspective. Or just for the hell of it. For example: "Vin Diesel once strapped a baby to a rocket and fired it through Central Park, just because it was the baby's birthday." -Silence 16:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Glad to see you are back to being your usual self (true). For a moment you got me worried thinking we were going to be deprived of your intellect and your diatribes (true). Please forgime if I do not reply in kind to all that you write (true), but you see, I am not that smart and I get lost after a few lines: after the yada yada ya started to sound the same argumentative self, I did stop reading. Besides I do not have the amount of time required to pursue this level of dancing with you (true about the time funny about dancing). But don't despair (ironic), I am sure somebody somewhere would love to tango with you (trying to be funny). BTW, I am honoured that a person with a superior intellect like yours would spend the time to write to me in such detail (backhanded comment). I am not sure I deserve the honor (backhanded comment). Cheers (true). --Anagnorisis 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not read the whole thing (true about your whole reply above); just a couple of sections at the beginning and the last one (because it was so close to my text when I was replying). I just want to say that what you say at the end sounds almost like something I may have said in one of my good days (do I have to keep clarifying when I am being serious?). In other words, it makes sense and I agree with what you say there (true). Now only thing left is you applying to yourself the same advice you give to others (true and being direct as you ask). Then if we all do it, we may all once again be a happy family under Chavez (true about happy ironic about Chavez). ;-)
        • I'll correct your parenthetical annotations to your comment, if you don't mind:
      • Glad to see you are back to being your usual self (derisive, sarcastic jab). For a moment you got me worried thinking we were going to be deprived of your intellect and your diatribes (derisive, sarcastic dismissal of valid points and requests). Please forgime if I do not reply in kind to all that you write (faux-polite sarcasm, intended to insult while appearing friendly), but you see, I am not that smart and I get lost after a few lines (faux-self-deprecating sarcasm, intended to implicitly accuse Silence of intellectual elitism): after the yada yada ya started to sound the same argumentative self (finally a non-veiled insult! accusation of being tedious and "argumentative", conveniently forgetting who actually standard the argument, and that while Silence is attempting to resolve the dispute by addressing all of Anagnoris's concerns, Anagnorisis is just continuing the same personal attacks that he started this conversation with), I did stop reading. Besides I do not have the amount of time required to pursue this level of dancing with you (flimsy explanation for unwillingness to pursue the conversation that he started in the first place, other than to continue with the character attacks). But don't despair (faux melodrama), I am sure somebody somewhere would love to tango with you (continuation of meaningless metaphor to try to get a laugh). BTW, I am honoured that a person with a superior intellect (faux-self-deprecating sarcasm, intended to implicitly accuse Silence of intellectual elitism) like yours would spend the time to write to me in such detail (backhanded insult). I am not sure I deserve the honor (backhanded insult; faux humility to implicitly accuse Silence of arrogance). Cheers (cheerful sign-off note for humorous/ironic contrast with venomous comments). --Anagnorisis (EDIT: User:Silence placed my signature after he wrote the above. As I did not write it, I am striking it out. User:Silence, it is proper to sign with one's own siganture and not to use that of others to pretend that they wrote what they didn't write. If done on purpose, that is highly unethical. Please behave. --Anagnorisis 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
      • Oh, good grief. Quit being such a drama queen. (1) I did not put your signature above, I put your user name above; your signature has the date and time. (2) Since you obviously haven't noticed (because you equally obviously have read so little of anything I've said in this conversation, even though you're the one who sought out me to complain and begin this discussion), this paragraph and the next one are a reproduction of your above post, with my new comments the un-italicized portions in parentheses in them. This is made painfully obvious by the fact that I posted my above comment "I'll correct your parenthetical annotations" above, and then followed the two paragraphs immediately with my signature. (3) The real reason you were confused is because you didn't bother to read the next paragraph, which is nothing but a continuation of the above one, and which is immediately followed by my signing the post as my own. And the real reason that happened is because of your own error, where you mistakenly signed your username in your above post at the end of the first paragraph of your comment, rather than at the end of the second one! Thus it's entirely, without exception your own fault that this confusion ensued, and I was nice enough to remove the date and time from your sig when I reproduced the comment to point out its many glaring flaws, so that there would be no chance of mistaking it for your actual post. But of course, none of that's of any interest to you; all that you seem at all concerned about in the entirety of this conversation is finding new scraps of ammunition to try to use to launch new attacks upon me. Your focus is so single-minded and blind in this conversation that it's really starting to get boring. How can you spend so much time doing nothing but attacking and attacking and attacking a person who never did you any wrong? I don't have your stamina; I'd probably have gotten tired after the first two posts, apologized, and gone to play parcheezi. You have a remarkable capacity for hatred. -Silence 04:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not read the whole thing (true about your whole reply above); just a couple of sections at the beginning and the last one (because it was so close to my text when I was replying (admittance of profound laziness)). I just want to say that what you say at the end sounds almost like something I may have said in one of my good days (do I have to keep clarifying when I am being serious? (you never started clarifying when you were serious, you just decided to pretend to do so to add weight to most of your backhanded insults by following them up with "true", only correctly labeling as backhanded a couple of your numerous sarcastic jabs; your whole first paragraph was largely just another attempt to attack me, whereas your second paragraph is more serious, but that's obvious enough just from reading it that explicitly stating "true" would be completely useless even if you weren't obviously just trying to use that to make a point)). In other words, it makes sense and I agree with what you say there (true). Now only thing left is you applying to yourself the same advice you give to others (untrue because Anagnorisis is continuing to use the same tactics and backhanded insults he did earlier, just disguising it with misleading "true" statements; also fails to specify exactly what standards that Silence advocated aren't being used by Silence, which would be helpful). Then if we all do it, we may all once again be a happy family under Chavez (true about happy ironic about Chavez). ;-)
****There. Much better. -Silence 19:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC) <-- Mr. Ana loses at reading. :/ -Silence 04:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not wise for us to waste our precious time and energy on such futile sparring. None of this is helping to reformat and simplify the article so that it is more intelligible to beginners and general-background readers (which, as Silence rightly pointed out, DOES need to be done). But also, as Anagnorisis pointed out, Silence should refrain from implying (whether intentionally or not) that readers of this article are necessarily stupid and that thus the article is in need of "dumbing-down". Easily upwards of 95% of the edits so far among the three of us have been beneficial for the article, with remarkably little conflict to trade jibes over. Exactly how little there is for us to argue over is readily evidenced by the above pathologically inane exchanges. Saravask 02:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Silence that this article needs extreme rehabilitation and refurbishment. Just because it is a featured article DOES NOT mean it is "perfect". After all, Wikipedia may in the future invent a "super-featured" status for exceptionally complete FAs that approach impossible perfection. But, of course, that does not mean we cannot try ... Saravask 02:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Please explain to me where I ever implied, intentionally or not, that "readers of this article are necessarily stupid and that thus the article is in need of 'dumbing-down'." I said that readers won't understand everything in this article if it's not explained to them; that's not stupidity, that's just not being omnisciently knowledgeable on every topic prior to being informed about it. If you thought that what I said was a backhanded insult to our readers, then that's unfortunate, but I have no control over how my words can be misunderstood, nor does anyone else; I have some control over what I genuinely imply, but I have yet to see how anything I've said implies what it's been accused of implying. So, hopefully, we've clarified what I actually meant, and can move on.
  • "After all, Wikipedia may in the future invent a "super-featured" status for exceptionally complete FAs that approach impossible perfection." - I think it's more likely that the "Featured Article" status will become progressively harder and harder to attain, and retain, as Wikipedia continues to grow over the years and progressively better and better articles arrive. It's happened before; if you look at Featured Articles from a year or two ago, most of them would never make it to FA by today's standards! That's why it's possible to remove an article's FA status: not only because some articles degrade over time after becoming Featured, but also because the standards for being Featured slowly change. But, of course, being Featured isn't the only goal of articles; even if this page is forever an FA (which is what I'd expect), it's still got lots of areas it can improve in, especially in clarifying and tightening up some sections. -Silence 16:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Saravask, I really think Silence is right. He now clarified it: " I said that readers won't understand everything in this article if it's not explained to them; that's not stupidity, that's just not being omnisciently knowledgeable on every topic prior to being informed about it." Now, you guess who is going to make sure they understand everything by explaining it to them -because THEY are not "omnisciently knowledgeable on every topic prior to being informed about it." I just wonder who is? Anyone comes to mind? Bingo! You got it. Same person I had in mind.
  • Wow. Mere minutes after I specifically ask you to be direct with any problems you have with me, and already you're starting up with the backhanded insults and accusations again. Not only is your veiled accusation that I consider myself omniscient tremendously insulting, but it's also demonstrably—hell, blatantly—untrue when read in context; you seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that this entire conversation came up because I am having a hard time understanding many portions of the text, and since I'm not able to figure out many of the lines in some of the later paragraphs, many readers probably won't be able to either. I've been using my ignorance (relative to you and Saravask) to see what parts of the article some readers will probably be baffled or off-put by, as I've explained several times now. None of my comments up to this point would even make sense if I considered myself "superior" somehow, since I've been basing my statements about the article's understandability on the assumption that I'm more or less average; I may be inferior, of course, but since I'm able to understand most articles beginning to end, it's a bit more likely that some sections of the article just need to be a little more clearly-worded so that the general public can derive their proper meanings without undue trouble. This sequence of events is becoming ridiculous. To summarize:
    • Silence: "Hm, some of these sections are a bit of a challenge to wade through. We'll probably need to work on clarifying and tightening them up in the future. I'm having trouble understanding a few of these paragraphs, so our readers probably will too."
    • Anagnorisis: "Are you saying that our readers are stupid, the people who approved this article's FA are incompetent, and we're terrible editors? You arrogant son of a bitch! :-)"
    • Silence: "Um, I didn't say any of those things. This article's quite good, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Also, could you tone down the insults?"
    • Anagnorisis: "The fact that you were at all offended by anything I said, even though I used a smiley face at the end, shows that you lied on your User Page when you said you had a sense of humor! Liar pants, liar pants! Also your comments are too long, so I'm not gonna read them."
    • Saravask: "Anagnorisis, Silence is right, this article isn't perfect yet. Silence, stop calling our readers stupid."
    • Silence: "... I never called them stupid, that's just what Anagnorisis claimed I was saying when I said that our readers probably wouldn't understand parts of the article. Why would it be stupid to not understand everything in an article? Anyone who's not omniscient won't understand portions of articles that don't explain the terminology and situation clearly."
    • Anagnorisis: "Did you hear that?! 'Anyone who's not omniscient'... clearly he's saying that he's omniscient! Hah, I knew he was arrogant!"
    • Silence: *gets a migraine* -Silence 19:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Then he interestingly says: "If you thought that what I said was a backhanded insult to our readers, then that's unfortunate, but I have no control over how my words can be misunderstood, nor does anyone else; I have some control over what I genuinely imply, but I have yet to see how anything I've said implies what it's been accused of implying. So, hopefully, we've clarified what I actually meant, and can move on." I think Silence should read his own words before sometimes jumping the gun. I wonder if it may not be also unfortunate when he thinks that others are perhaps trying to insult him. I wonder if he gives the same benefit to the rest and makes an effort to understand what they genuily implied, before he accused them of implying something else and gets all defensive. Interesting how the power of his argument only works one way -when it suits him. Well, now that he hopefully thinks all is clear, we can move on. Saravask, one thing I have learned, is that one should not try engaging superior minds that are always right about everything. Specially when on top of being always right they are very sensitive about being questioned in any way, shape, or form, regardless of how open minded they want to believe they are. BTW, in case it wasn't clear (I said it before, but some seem only understand what they write themselves): I like most (not ALL) of Silence's contributions to the main article, so I think we better let him proceed without interrupting him by engaging him in the talk page. Lets not distract him from the good work he is doing (do I have to clarify I am not being ironic?). Cheers to all and yippie that we now can move on. --Anagnorisis 17:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "I think Silence should read his own words before sometimes jumping the gun." - I did read my own words. Four or five times, when I made the reply you just replied to, to try to figure out how anyone could possibly derive "our readers are stupid" from what I said. Since I failed to derive any such thing, and since you still haven't explained how or why you thought I was saying that, I'll assume it was just an innocent misunderstanding on your part, no harm done. If you do have any sort of explanation for why you thought I was questioning our readers' (or anyone's) intelligence, go ahead.
  • "I wonder if it may not be also unfortunate when he thinks that others are perhaps trying to insult him." - I consider unjustified accusations of arrogance, hypocrisy, and writing "diatribes" to be insulting. Wouldn't you? At the risk of turning this conversation into a möbius strip: before you tell someone to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you should consider doing the same yourself. :)
  • "I wonder if he gives the same benefit to the rest and makes an effort to understand what they genuily implied, before he accused them of implying something else and gets all defensive." - Of course I try to understand what you genuinely implied. How would it benefit me to misunderstand what you were saying? All it could do was make me look like an idiot, whereas understanding your actual implications would help me gain a better understanding of where you're coming from and thus shorten and simplify this discussion considerably. The same applies to you, with your incorrect interpretation of my implications (say that five times fast!) that prompted this "stupid readers" thread. But in both cases, isn't it much more likely that we're misunderstanding each other's implications by accident than on purpose? When you misunderstood what I said, I took the time to clearly explain my actual meaning. You, however, have failed to do the same, merely making vague and unjustified complaints about my not deriving exactly what you meant from your statements. I'm not psychic; if you didn't express yourself properly or I'm missing some crucial bit of information that would help me understand your meaning, then you're the only one who can correct my mistaken interpretation, since I have reread both your comments and my own several times now and have gleaned all the meaning that's available... though I get the impression that you didn't do the same with many of my comments, else you'd probably have figured out the true meaning behind my "omniscience" and "understanding" comments—hell, you didn't even read most of what I said once, so asking me to read what you said even more times is a tad unreasonable, don't you think?
  • "Interesting how the power of his argument only works one way -when it suits him." - Um? What do you mean? Why would I make an argument that contradicts me, or that I disagree with? Wouldn't that just make me a hypocrite?
  • "Well, now that he hopefully thinks all is clear, we can move on. Saravask, one thing I have learned, is that one should not try engaging superior minds that are always right about everything." - "Let's move on," he says, and then 2 second later turns around to launch yet another nasty, backhanded insult. It's really almost comical.
  • "Specially when on top of being always right they are very sensitive about being questioned in any way, shape, or form, regardless of how open minded they want to believe they are." - If you aren't careful, you'll start a global straw shortage with those strawmen you're creating. Not only have I never said that I'm always right (you seem to think that just because I don't blindly obey everything you tell me even though you've completely failed/refused to address almost any of my points, I think I'm always right—I'd certainly be the first person to tell you that this is not the case), but I'm also not sensitive to "being questioned in any way, shape, or form"—I'm just not so meek and selfless that I'll just roll over and take it when you decide to create a conversation entirely devoted to repeatedly and viciously attacking me in every way you possibly can, from beginning to end. :)
  • "BTW, in case it wasn't clear (I said it before, but some seem only understand what they write themselves):" - Even more veiled (though not very well-veiled, as usual; they're pretty obvious) insults and accusations. Is this seriously the same guy who said not three lines above "we can move on"? Wow. A truly beautiful praeteritional argument. You should seriously teach a class on how best to pack as many backhanded insults and snide jabs into seemingly inoccuous statements as possible. You're a master.
  • "I like most (not ALL)" - Which ones don't you like, incidentally? I'm always interested in hearing thought-out criticism, especially from people as informed on the topic (in this case, Hugo Chavez) as you. If you don't like any of the changes I've been making, I'd love to hear about it, especially if it will influence how I edit this or other articles in the future. If you don't want to, though, don't feel pressured. I don't like all of my edits either. :)
  • "of Silence's contributions to the main article, so I think we better let him proceed without interrupting him by engaging him in the talk page." - Distract me all you want. I can both work on the Article page and converse on the Talk page simultaneously; I'd be working on the article now, but I'm taking a short break before diving into the next section. In fact, when I don't get enough comments on the Talk page I sometimes get bored and leave after a while. :P I'm glad this article is so much more active than many of the ones I've worked on before; it's much more interesting to actually work with other people on an article.
  • Of course, it's quite annoying to take the time to work hard on writing some thorough, important comments and then to have them virtually ignored by the person you're talking to; I prefer actual conversations to a one-sided discussion interspersed with "replies" that don't actually reply to anything that's been said. If you really aren't interested, that's your prerogative (though I wonder why you started this conversation if you weren't interested in hearing any responses?), but I'd vastly prefer you join in on the dialogue than just insert monologues as though they were replies without having read most of what I've said. It helps make sure I don't have to repeat myself, and keeps the conversation from getting stuck in a rut or running in circles. Moving on is fine, but resolving our dispute would be infinitely better, as it would clear the bad air and help us understand what went wrong much better; unfortunately, that's not possible as long as you insist on ignoring all of my comments just because you don't have the patience to set aside 5 minutes to read them. :f
  • "Lets not distract him from the good work he is doing (do I have to clarify I am not being ironic?)." - No, you've made it clear that while you have a deep and inexplicable disdain for me as a human being, you appreciate the contributions I've made, for which I thank you, and I'm glad you're a big enough person to distinguish the editor from the edits. Now if only you could distinguish the editor from the strawmen. -Silence 19:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Energizer bunny

Silence, there you go again. What a twisted ego and how convenient you apply double standards. Your wikiname certainly is an attempt at ironic humor. Instead of Silence, your prose brings to mind the Energizer bunny. Keeps going and going and going. Funny how you get annoyed and when others missunderstand what you say you were clearly saying, while claiming it is not your problem they do not understand you. While on the other hand being presumptious enough to correct and give your "correct" interpretation of what it is others were saying. With such a duplicious style, there is no point in even trying to have any kind of semi-smart debate with you. So go ahead, retort now with another of those diatribes. I have better things to do than keep wasting my times with a self centered egomaniac that has blinders in his brain and instead of listening to a criticism (however sarcastic or ironic it may have been initially), because his ego is not able to handle it, then resorts to escalate the disagreement and digresses and turns it into a semantic tango with no end in sight. One thing is certain: you are a smart guy, but that aside, I hope you are also fairly young, as you are not showing the mental maturity that only years of experience teach people with great intellects in regard to how to handle their own ego. Some never learn how to do it and become brilliant minds with a style that does not allow them to relate well with society. Hopefully you are not there yet, and there is time for you to learn and not turn into one of those cases already. If you are already past the age to learn how to handle your ego, then any further discussion is a waste of time. Either way, I am not wasting more time with you. From now on you will get SILENCE from me. Besides, it will also be nice of me stop enticing you to reply as we should try not forcing this silly tango to readers who want to discuss here the Chavez article instead of this silly ego sparring about whose dick (sorry brain) is bigger. Go ahead, you can have the last word (which I won't bother reading -like I just did with most of your last retort-, but that I am sure the fans you think you have here await with anticipation). "The higher you fly the smaller you look to people on the ground." Oh, one last comment, changing the position of my signature to follow after text written by you, is highly unethical if done on purpose (to put it mildly). I hope it was an honest mistake (which I dount it was). --Anagnorisis 22:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • "Funny how you get annoyed and when others missunderstand what you say you were clearly saying, while claiming it is not your problem they do not understand you." - I am justified in being annoyed that you misunderstand me because you haven't taken the time to read most of what I've said, whereas I've read everything you've said several times. I am justified in being annoyed that you complain about my misinterpreting what you're saying (while not actually doing anything about it, like explaining clearly what you really meant), because while I've explained in great detail and clarity every statement of mine that you've misinterpreted, you've taken next to no time at all to clear up my concerns or explain your own statement. Conversations are a two-way street; if you refuse both to read and to respond to most of what I've said, yet expect me to pay any attention to your own comments rather than just blowing you off with a few jabs and insults (as you do to me), you lose the right to accuse anyone of "double standards".
  • "While on the other hand being presumptious enough to correct and give your "correct" interpretation of what it is others were saying." - No, I gave the best interpretations I could deduce from what's been said. As I've said, I'm not psychic, so some of these will obviously be wrong; but there's no way for anyone to tell which are wrong and which are right until you explain what you really meant in any case where I misunderstood your intent or meaning. Accusing me of being "presumptious" is as counterproductive as it is ridiculous; everyone must presume certain things to have a conversation at all, because we aren't literalists. The problem is when a presumption is wrong, and when that happens, the solution is to correct the presumption, not to dance around and scream bloody murder at the person who misunderstood you. Get it?
  • "With such a duplicious style, there is no point in even trying to have any kind of semi-smart debate with you." - Is that why you have never come close to trying in this entire conversation thus far? :)
  • "So go ahead, retort now with another of those diatribes." - What is this, a United States presidential debate? Repeating the same catchphrase over and over again, be it "diatribe" or "flip-flopper", doesn't make it any more true, and doesn't invalidate any of the points I've made, and certainly doesn't exempt you from being guilty of the same thing you accuse others of being guilty of.
  • "I have better things to do than keep wasting my times with a self centered egomaniac that has blinders in his brain and instead of listening to a criticism (however sarcastic or ironic it may have been initially), because his ego is not able to handle it," - I listened to your criticism, and replied accordingly. You refused to listen or reply to any of mine, and insulted and attacked me whenever I was remotely critical or tried to take any time at all to properly explain a situation. With that in mind, who are you really talking about when you mention something who isn't "listening to a criticism"?
  • "then resorts to escalate the disagreement" - "Escalates the disagreement"? The disagreement was pretty damned escalated from the beginning. Read the very first lines of this conversation, when you began this discussion by launching a series of totally unjustified and inflammatory accusations and backhanded insults at me. If anything, I tried to bring the tone of the conversation up by turning it from a personal attack into a reasonable, thought-out discussion. Sadly, this attempt failed, because if both parties aren't willing to talk things out calmly...
  • "and digresses and turns it into a semantic tango with no end in sight." - Where did I digress? I replied to every point you've made, and you've replied to just about none of mine. You're also the one who keeps making the strange dance metaphors, and keeps replying to my comments with diatribe-like rants rather than even attempting a point-by-point rebuttal. And, again, you accuse me of double standards? (Especially considering that you immediately followed this criticism with a lengthy, and inaccurate, speculative digression.)
  • "Besides, it will also be nice of me stop enticing you to reply as we should try not forcing this silly tango to readers who want to discuss here the Chavez article instead of this silly ego sparring about whose dick (sorry brain) is bigger." - It's gotten pretty obvious by now that you brought a hell of a lot of previously-existing emotional baggage to this discussion. You're the one who first introduced the concept of intelligence to this Talk page at all (with your initial post and by framing the discussion as "Stupid readers"), and who's repeatedly brought up idiocy and genius throughout almost every one of your posts continuously, while I've been much more concerned with more important matters than ridiculous attempts to gauge anyone's intelligence. This entire conversation started with you mistakenly taking a completely inoccuous comment of mine as a horrible insult to the intelligence of all Wikipedians; that alone should have tipped me off that you have some definite inadequacy problem at the heart of your anger, but your repeated, seemingly random references to intelligence have only confirmed it. Why you somehow think that just because someone is a bit more verbose than someone else that person is an egomaniacal self-centered intellectual elitist swine, I'll probably never know, but hopefully someday you'll understand that some people are just talkative, without their wordiness having anything to do with arrogance or egotism or pride or intellectualism. How much or little a person talks has nothing to do with their intelligence. Please resolve the personal problems that are clearly intruding heavily into this discussion on your own time, and make an effort not to view other people's comments solely in the light of your own insecurities, if you can.
  • "but that I am sure the fans you think you have here await with anticipation)." - Even more strawmen. Is that the hundredth one yet? Just because you wish I thought I had fans, so you could criticize me for doing so, doesn't make it so. :) If your only interest is in attacking an imaginary strawman that has nothing to do with the person you're talking to, then for clarity's sake you shouldn't name that strawman "Silence", as it'll cause confusion with anyone paying attention to what the real Silence, myself, is saying. As soon as you want to actually reply to what I've said in my above comments, do feel free to do so; I eagerly await some criticisms that have actual relevance or significance to me, rather than ones that are just reflections of your own pre-existing prejudices.
  • "Oh, one last comment, changing the position of my signature to follow after text written by you," - I never changed the position of your signature on any of your comments. You mistakenly put your signature at the end of the first paragraph of your comment, if that's what you're referring to, and left the second paragraph unsigned, though it's ridiculously obvious that you're saying both; the same applies to any later comments where I responded to the text in the specific area it appeared in so that you'd have an easier time reading it (since one of your earlier complaints was that you wouldn't bother reading text if you couldn't see it in the same window you were adding your own comments in; apparently scrolling is beneath you).
  • "is highly unethical if done on purpose (to put it mildly)." - "To put it mildly"? You should have said "To put it melodramatically", since it's hardly "highly unethical"; it's a trivial nuisance at worst, certainly not interpretable as any sort of attempt at impersonating another user's comments or whatever ridiculous new unjustified strawman accusation you're dreaming up to try to pin on me. "Highly unethical" would be killing a pregnant woman, or raping a child, or torturing an innocent man; but not taking the time to fully delete someone's signature on an Internet Talk page while reproducing a comment of his to critique it? Um, not so much. Oy. This is the problem with conversations where one person's intent is to have an actual discussion, and the other person's sole intent is to try at every possible moment to pour as much hatred and bile as possible at the other party. Have you even for a second in this entire conversation, even for one second, tried to be at all civil? Probably you have. But then the second passed, and you continued your attacks.
  • "I hope it was an honest mistake (which I dount it was)." - And for that matter, have you tried for even one second, at any point, to assume good faith? From the beginning to the end of this conversation, you've done absolutely nothing but assume bad faith, and then to completely ignore any attempts to clarify the actual intentions behind the many things I've said that you've misunderstood, since the only things that interest you are apparently comments that you can try to twist around to use as weapons against me. Why do you seem to prefer that this be a battle instead of a conversation? There's no winning in such a match, whereas there's universal winning in an actual person-to-person exchange of ideas, as I attempted with my first comments—which you continue to ignore.
  • Disappointing. -Silence 04:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

.... going and going and going ....

Yada yada ya. You seem to be going for some kind of record; is it the higher ratio of words in rthe reply to words in text replied to? Gosh, you really are like the energizer bunny. BTW, as I reminded you earlier, this page is to discuss the article. It is not intended to be used as practice for your next session at the school debate club. Debate by the sake of debate over the debate itself is very much digressing from the page's topic. And as said before, I will not debate anything with you. What is the point? Besides, I am not even reading what you writing. Just that diarrhea of words is too much to even glance at. So I wonder to who you are addresing all that? Do you have a fan base that anxiously awaits to read your witty diatribes (oh no! this will just elicit now another long retort - sorry guys, but he cant help it- Silence likes being loud). Silence, you can have the last word. Go ahead, gives us another 3 or 4 pages of your beautiful prose ...... Hmmmmm, but now that I think about it, .... it is starting to be amusing to see how easy you can be baited: bait, sink and ..... hooked. Yes!! Lets do it one more time. --Anagnorisis 05:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions

  • Does anyone else think that finding a way to get a little more horizontal space for the links in the "Topics related to Hugo Chavez" box, and thus shortening the box by two lines (since three of the links lines just barely go over one line in length), would be pretty nifty?
    • Uh, so you want me to remove two of the categories? Or do you want me to shorten several of the names? I'll see what I can do ... Saravask 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I just shortened the names. I hope that this will do for now. Thanks. Saravask 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Inserting the word "ribald" to describe his speaking style as sugg. by Anagnorisis; Silence, do not revert this without explaining, considering that two of us want it in there."
  • When have I ever reverted anything without explaining why? I often do it in edit history rather than in talk page simply because it's much quicker whenever I don't have reason to believe that the edit will be controversial, but whenever anyone's objected I've been willing to talk it over here. My only objection is that you still haven't succeeded in doing the very thing you claim to wish to do: to make it clear to readers from the start that Chavez has a very unusual public speaking style. No reader who doesn't already know about Chavez will understand that "Chavez is known for his ribald promotion of both Latin American integration and anti-imperialism" means that Chavez is known for his ribald manner in general, or that the line is specifically referring to his mannerisms, style, accent, and other oratorical quirks, not to the promotion itself. But such problems should be of concern to you, not me, since you're the ones working hard to try to convey the relevant information; I won't get involved, since it's obviously such a touchy subject. -Silence 22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Concerned? Who? Moi? My concern is mostly that the article does not become absurdly pro-Chavez. So, no I am not concerned about this latest twist. Actually, I like it more like this, because Chavez is like that in everything. (short article from LA Times)It just happens that when he opens his mouth it becomes more obvious. So I am happy with the change. And I think I have to thank you for it: thanks Silence. Cheers. (Hey, check the Nov. 17 cartoon from the LA Times) --Anagnorisis 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It requires subscription/registration. Saravask 23:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. I neither subscribed nor registered. But I guess it doesn't let you in unless you start at one of the main pages: try this one and if that one doesn't work start from the main page: http://www.latimes.com/ --Anagnorisis 00:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was able to read the article, but was still unable to get access to the cartoon (cookie problems). If it helps any, I've seen plenty of wierd cartoons of Chavez. Saravask 00:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The cartoon is a dog on a leash being walked by a man. And the dog looking back at the man says Vicente Fox is the puppy of the Bush administration. Now, the dog is Chavez and the man walking the dog is Castro.
Wha...? Does Castro say anything? And I didn't know that dogs talked. LOL. I wonder if we could put that in the article, since I've since many political cartoons in other articles. But then again, perhaps because this is an exalted featured article, "they" will track us down and disembowel us if we put in copyrighted material such as newspaper cartoons. Saravask 01:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)