User talk:N4GMiraflores

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, N4GMiraflores, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JRSP (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Be Bold!

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). JRSP (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I had bothered you. I did not see an edit button like most of the pages have. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize. You're doing well, remember to be bold, don't ask for permission, do it yourself and don't worry about making mistakes. There are a lot of things you need to learn but newbies can make mistakes, so don't worry. I think you are on the way of becoming a great editor. By the way, you may check WP:Cite for info about how to add sources. JRSP (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not see an edit button like most of the pages have. You're right, the Hugo Chávez article is semiprotected so anonymous IPs and new accounts can't edit it. You will see the edit button in a couple of days. JRSP (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for all your help so far. Some of this is daunting, like the cite stuff. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of us on the Sandinista page remain quite interested in what your suggestion was. Would you please share it with us? Stone put to sky (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just figured the best source would be the human rights groups, instead of Time Magazine, or an article from an .edu where the author is a person who worked for the government in the same areas that would have been part of much of the under the table US back room deals that took place. I do not really want to get involved with such an argument. I thought I would recommend that, maybe some of you'll would follow it, and all would be better. But it seems the notion is countered, so I am stepping back. I just got here and really do not need to make enemies, just hoping to help out where I can. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I appreciated your input on the Sandinista page

I have left a brief response to your suggestions from ~10 days back. I support your suggestions. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sandinista National Liberation Front, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sandinista National Liberation Front was changed by N4GMiraflores (u) (t) deleting 57447 characters on 2008-02-26T21:36:58+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Sandinista National Liberation Front constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Do not add back tag

Read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it". If you add back the speedy tag, I will report you. Do an ordinary deletion request if you really want to.Ultramarine (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The tag says you have to explain your reasoning, please do. Thank you. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Only applies to page creator.Ultramarine (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Read WP:3RR. If you revert more than 3 times may report and blocked.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re your recent edit

It is generally recommended that you do not edit [...] comments left on talk pages (other than your own, and even then do not be reckless).

– WP:BOLD

Tread carefully here, or you might end up stepping on toes. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Being rude to people for no other reason other then to get an additional jab in, is uncivil. I am not concerned with peoples toes, if they are not concerned with others feelings. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

Please stop duplicating "Sandinista National Liberation Front". You restored a version where almost all of the article is repeat twice. Look at the table of contents! There are two sections on "Cuban assistance", "1984 elections" etc.Ultramarine (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing mistake, much like [1]. Thanks for the notice. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of 3RR

You have violated WP:3RR. Please self-revert your last edit.Ultramarine (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did no such thing, if you look closely I had already self reverted once when dealing with Dorvaq, instead tweaking the text. Your count is off. Perhaps you should attempt to "talk" about the issue as you noted yourself in your last edit summary on the page, instead of impotently threatening to get your way. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a complete revert. Unless you completely self-revert you violate the rule.Ultramarine (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to report, give me the link, and the admin will tell you otherwise, you are counting reverts on two separate sentences, for two different items. There is a discussion now on the talk page, feel free to chime in, or continue to rattle your saber. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thought your edit was good

Changed some formatting and tried to tighten it up. That's all. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Races...

You're completely missing my point. What I am trying to tell you is that if the sentence stays as is, but gets well-sourced (<-- key point there), then it will not be in violation of WP:OR regardless of whether you feel it's off-topic or not, and regardless of the original editor's intentions. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two sentences you seem to be connecting. Sources non-academic, does not give the right to add off topic material that states the publisher is racist in order to "inform the reader" there is potential bias. If a source can be found stating potential bias in the book because of the publisher, then yes, obviously it would not be WP:OR. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not connecting any sentences I assure you. The whole "non-academic" discussion was the only issue *I* could find with the original sentence because the sentence was incorrectly referenced, which is what I meant to say in my last post on the article talk page. Granted, I should have been a little more explicit in explaining that...
Anyhow, my other point is that you don't need to find sources indicating "potential bias in the book because of the publisher" if that claim is not being made in the article in the first place - and that claim was not being made. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a pointless roundabout and argued on the article talk page already. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you in that we have already discussed this on the article talk page, and the only reason I have reposted here was that you still seem convinced the other 2 editors need to provide sources for a claim that isn't being made in the article.
Anyhow, I pulling out of the discussion both here and on the article talk page as I had no intention on being a part of it in the first place.
I don't know how much experience you have with these types of discussions on Wikipedia, but I can tell you that editor intention will(should) have no bearing on the outcome of the issue. The only factors usually considered is relevance, neutrality, and accuracy (shown with reliable sources). The only point I can see that may help push the issue in your favor is "relevance", but that can be argued both ways. So on that note, all I can say is good luck and I hope an agreeable compromise will be reached. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted an RfC and a request on the WP:OR page, so far all outside people disagree with you. Stating the bias regarding the publisher needs to be made in context with the book, it is not, therefore its WP:OR. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they both agree and disagree. As mentioned above I stated the only point I thought you could win this over was "relevance", which is the direction they're taking (ie. "in the context of the book").
Contrary to what you may believe, I really don't care about winning or having the last word as you once suggested. I only care about following Wikipedia policies and guidelines while respecting consensus. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Then it looks like we both have the same goal, and this situation will be resolved accordingly. Relevance was what I was arguing in the first place, removing it as "off topic" --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well for the record, regardless of consensus I still think it is relevant ;-p But I can appreciate why you feel it isn't. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts to evade a ban. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.