User talk:Saravask/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chavez

I saw your note on Hugo Chavez. I'm cleaning up ALL the categories by nationality, placing all athletes into their appropriate sport and nationality. I made sure that Chavez was in Venezuelan baseball players before removing him (as I did everybody else) from the main page of Venezuelan sportspeople. I'm not finished yet, but the categories are a lot cleaner than they were before I started. So anyway, if you want Chavez to be the only Venezuelan listed by himself in the main category (and eventually the only athlete to be so listed in any national category), I guess leave him there.--Mike Selinker 09:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it. It's my fault, in that I normally put a reason for the edit but on that one I must have slipped and failed to do so. Thanks for seeing it that way.--Mike Selinker 09:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warnings

The vandalism warnings should go on the vandal's talk page, not the vandal's user page. Great job you've been doing so far reverting vandalism. Keep it up!  :-) --Nlu 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Chavez

There wasn't any particular section that stood out as being biased (the article is far too good for that); rather it just gave me the vibe of being a little sympathetic. I doubt I could pick out any specific criticisms, which is one reason why I didn't object because of it. Ambi 01:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Chávez a Featured Article

Congratulations on your first and brilliant FA! And thank you again for your great comments on The Relapse, I 'm not sure I made it clear how much they encouraged me. While nobody'd found any fault with the article, out of the few who voted on it (unless you count Piotrus' objection, which I can't say I do), nobody'd exactly sounded interested either. "OK, no problems that I can see, support." The votes all came in the first few hours after I nominated it, then the vote died. When you posted yours, I was just thinking that next time I write a piece, I might as well e-mail it to the fanclub (=Geogre and Ganymead), instead of putting it up on wikipedia, something I always have doubts about anyway. Contributing to the world's biggest collaborative encyclopedia sounds fine--theoretically--but our efforts also sustain all those commercial, ad-driven Wiki mirror sites. We're working for free for them, and I'm less than happy about that side of it. Anyway, thank you very much for dispelling my self-pity, and especially for your detailed queries. I hope to see Hugo Chávez on the Main Page soon! Bishonen|talk 12:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

• I'll second the congratulations on Hugo Chávez here, and also award you the prize for this week's hardest-working-FAC-editor! I had Black pepper go through and felt more than a little guilty at times about what an easy topic it is to cover compared to yours. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shoe polish

Hi Saravask, many thanks for your help in getting shoe polish to Featured article status. Hooray! All the best, Proto t c 10:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silence

Left a message in Silence's talk page regarding Chavez style. Seems like a smart guy but a bit haughty at times. Hopefully I am wrong on that last view. Lets see how he takes it. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 15:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well your good friend Silence seems not to have the good sense of humor I thought he would have (from reading his user page). Well, it seems that now without Silence around, then you will be left alone to do most of the work. :-) --Anagnorisis 00:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• And what did I say? C'mon! do not put it on me. The problem is the guy is way too sensitive when at the same time being too proud. I told him that most of his contributions were good (what did he expect me to tell him that ALL were excellent!?). But in a nicer way (than what I am saying here) I also told him to get down because his horse was not that high. Besides, he boasts of being very sarcastic and asks people to understand he doesn't mean it. So what? He cannot take a bit of the same? Goes around, comes around. Not my problem if the guy has these issues inside. I am not going to be responsible for babysitting his sensitive ego. BTW, I do not have any issues with him editing the article and I welcome him to do it. But he should not rub so often how smart he is and talk the rest of the people down -which he has done, and thus could be a bit more humble. So, I think it was also time for someone to call him on that. Hopefully he will be back. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 03:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some comments follow. I'd appreciate it if you take the time to read them, as you've so rarely done in the past. As with all my other comments on the discussion page, I spent a lot of time writing and rewriting them to convey the needed information, so just blowing it all off as "being wrong because it's long" is profoundly counterproductive. Do it if you want, but know you're hurting yourself as much as me. -Silence 18:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• "(what did he expect me to tell him that ALL were excellent!?)" - Of course not. Where did I ever say or suggest that? In fact, where did I even ever bring up what you thought of my edits? This seems to be another strawman, to try to write off my perfectly valid offense at being so severely insulted as just bitterness over not being worshiped for my edits, when all of my actual comments have implied that I welcome real criticism of and feedback on changes I've made to the article. If anything, I'm the one who had a right to suggest, based on your first comment in the discussion, that your actions were at least partly the result of your being offended that I didn't think that all of the Hugo Chavez article was amazing, just large parts of it. For more weird attempts to accuse me of things that your text indicates more than mine, see the beginning of "to the heart of the matter".
• "But in a nicer way (than what I am saying here)" - Is that a joke? You couldn't have been more rude and offensive if you'd tried. ..And I'm pretty sure that you did try! By comparison, your comments here are refreshingly to-the-point and relatively lacking in spite. ... Which isn't saying much.
• "Besides, he boasts of being very sarcastic" - Untruth. Please provide a quote where I ever said or suggested that. I have never "boasted" of being sarcastic. I don't even understand how someone could boast of that; is sarcasm a good thing? I'd say it's neither good nor bad, it's just an interesting device that most people use occasionally. Like a can opener! Would you boast of using a can opener regularly?
• "and asks people to understand he doesn't mean it." - Only because, unlike you, I don't mean it. The difference between my sarcasm and yours is that mine is intended to be funny and silly and point out absurdities for everyone's amusement, while yours is intended to personally attack me. My sarcasm is indeed generally intended to lighten the mood; yours is intended to make a point by launching backhanded insults at me. See the difference yet?
• "But he should not rub so often how smart he is and talk the rest of the people down" - I have never done that in my life. Please provide a quote where I ever said or suggested that.
• "which he has done, and thus could be a bit more humble." - If I've done it, it should be easy of you to find an example of me doing it. So why haven't you yet? I can provide quotations to substantiate every claim I've made about your negative and offensive comments; can you do the same?
• "So, I think it was also time for someone to call him on that." - So you admit that your intent with starting the "stupid readers" thread was not to have an actual discussion about the specific quotation you'd cited, but to try to attack my character in as many ways as possible and "knock me off my high horse"? No wonder you so spectacularly failed to provide any substantial arguments or reply to my points, when you came into the discussion looking to beat me into a pulp until I surrendered and accepted your superiority, not to read, understand, think, and then reply! I think it's pretty clear, looking over your early comments, where all the problems with that pseudodebate stemmed from. -Silence 18:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the heart of the matter

• Why do you feel such a need to bitch about me on other people's user pages? Be it the sarcastic barbs, the backhanded insults, the paralipsis, or the Talk page wandering, you seem to have a great love of attacking me in as many sneaky ways as possible, rarely ever actually confronting me on a real, substantiable problem you have. Your tactics are more like that of a political smear campaign than like an open, earnest discussion of grievances, from the misquotes (he said that people aren't omniscient, ergo he must think he's omniscient!) to the catchphrases (if I say the word "diatribe" often enough, it will become true!) to the fake conclusions ("so, let's move on." *5 seconds later* "Silence is a terrible person blah blah blah blah...").
• It also comes across like a smear campaign because of your tendency to try to attack me for things which you are secretly more guilty of: you call me "too proud" just because I gave a solid, factual criticism of a section of the Hugo Chavez page, when you're the one who's too proud to be able to let your work endure a little critique; you call me "too sensitive" just because I didn't sit down and take it when you barraged me with nonstop insults and slander, when the entire argument began because of your oversensitivity to my innocent and true statement "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." You call me "argumentative", when both of us are guilty of furthering the argument, but with the difference being that while I take the time to reply to all of your points as best I can, most of your comments are just more insults and baited comments intended to "take me down a notch"!
• I'd think your entire series of arguments was just a parody of how ridiculous and baseless arguments can be sometimes if I had any reason to believe so; I wish you were just playing a part, since then I could understand how a fellow human being could seem to be so completely detached and estranged from another person, so completely filled with venomous hatred for him without any real reason to be so. It's rather confusing and troubling.
• But since you've failed to provide any actual quotes where I said any of the things you repeatedly claim I've said (that I'm generally "better" than anyone else, that I'm "smarter", that I'm "proud", that I have a "fan club", or any number of the other fabrications you've made up about me without any basis in a single thing I've ever said), I'm forced to come to the conclusion that the problem here isn't with anything I've actually done, any improper behavior I've truly had (other than, perhaps, the mistake of answering your taunts and attacks in your very first comment under "stupid readers", on the assumption that you were in the mood to listen and actually exchange ideas and at least come to a mutual understanding; my greatest mistake was in assuming too much good faith and taking the time to listen and respond to your attacks—whereas you had the opposite problem..), but with your own pre-existing personal problems and biases, probably involving an extremely pronounced anti-intellectualism that causes you to viciously attack anyone who you think demonstrates the barest, most trivial sign of elitism or arrogance, judging that person entirely on your own assumptions, rather than on your actual observations of that person's actions.
• (Gahaha, the above paragraph is a single sentence! I am such a silly. :3) I'm afraid we'll just have to wait until you resolve that issue of yours and can see things as they are, not as you wish they were, before this conflict can be fully resolved. If that ever happens, feel free to contact me, as it'll be a happy day when we can resolve our differences, if ever. But I'm optimistic. Anyone can change—myself, of course, included. :) -Silence 18:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I will let you have Silence to yourself

Saravask, I am out of the article for now (in any meaningful way - I may just bait Silence for the fun of it). I can't believe the guy doesn't see he is so easy to wind up - it would be so less painful for him to just let go). This guy doesn't have any skin. He can not take anything with any humor. The amount of drible that comes out of him when his extremely sentisitive ego gets offended is absurd and pathetic. Yes, I have also continued the assault but as a response to his never ending defensive replies. Gosh, the guy is so uptight he cannot move on or see any humor (however sarcastic) because of his gigantic ego. And take note that even in his own page I said a few times that I agreed with things he said (go read it); and even yesterday in the page you archived. Now, lets assume for a moment that my first initial comment was a bit out of line. How then was his all-guns-out defensive ultra-long reply? Was that or any of his replies in any way conciliatory? They have been complete bollocks. So, I am not going to waste more my time with this article when a guy that puts blinders in his brain because he cannot take any criticism in any manner. It is pity, because the guy is smart. But with such a sensitive skin .... no way, I want to even try to have any intelligent exchange with him. Good luck; I notice you too have already have some disagreements with him -kind of strange don't you think, given how nice you tend to be all the time towards all the people. Have fun. Keep up the good work. I may come back when the guy starts to show a little of any of these: some skin (way too sensitive), humor (none now) or humility (no comments). --Anagnorisis 04:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, when I read what Silence wrote above, and he says "you," is he talking to you Saravask or to me? I think the guys gets so high on himself that he forgets this is your page, as some of the things he says would obviously not make sense if addressed to you. If I have something to say to Silence, I say it to him in his page (I just left a message there). But, I do not understand he using "you" to address me here in YOUR page. Weird, very weird. Looks like he is about to blow a gasket (if he hasn't already). --Anagnorisis 05:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some problematic accusations

You should check User:Silence's user page and talk page. I think you will find that it is his style to (innocuously) pick minor fights — he has told me that this helps him stay interested in an article. So I really don't think he was seriously seeking to rhetorically impale you. Anyway ... Saravask 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Surely you jest. You're apologizing to him for my conduct just because I was a tad too thorough in my replies for his taste? Completely ignoring the fact that every single one of his comments was directly intended to attack, insult, taunt, pester, and barrage me with snide jabs, from the very first comment to the very last? You apologize to him for my "picking minor fights" when he's the one who started the conversation and he's the one who began it with a series of insults, backhanded jabs, and blatant distortions designed to attack my character, and then continued to follow the exact same pattern throughout the conversation despite my numerous attempts to elevate the conversation with actual reason and discussion? And then, even after saying he's moving on, he continues to make the effort to drop in a veiled attack at me in every one of the comments he makes, rather than genuinely moving on, be it on your Talk page, on mine, or on Talk:Hugo Chávez.
• I strongly advise you to retract the statements "I think you will find that it is his style to (innocuously) pick minor fights" and "So I really don't think he was seriously seeking to rhetorically impale you". The former is a distortion because he is the one who picked the fight: read the actual discussion at the Talk page Archive and this couldn't be more clear; all of his comments were specifically intended to attack me, while all of my comments were intended to resolve the dispute and gain a better understanding of where the conflict actually was so we could reach a common ground. Thus, the latter is a distortion because you imply that any reasonable person could see my comments as trying to "rhetorically impale" him, when any reading of our actual discussion shows clearly that Anagnorisis was the one trying to tear me to pieces and assault me with every ridiculous and trivial misquote or distortion he could possibly dig up from anywhere, trying to "rhetorically impale" me, while I comparatively rarely ever even said a bad word about him!, sticking to defending myself and dispelling his mistaken interpretations, correcting his claims, pointing out the venom in every single line of his statements from the very first that would be clear to anyone. I'm glad that you agree that the argument was ridiculous, Saravask, but that doesn't mean that I'll just stand by and let you continue to spread the lies that Anagnorisis fabricated. -Silence 18:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• As if that wasn't enough, you still haven't withdrawn your absurd untruth from earlier, where you said: "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'."—suggesting that I had somehow ever implied that before, with my innocent statement "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". Now that I've cleared up any misunderstandings regarding what I said (you've read the whole discussion at Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive06#Stupid_readers by now, correct? Anag didn't even read half of it, which is the sole reason why the conversation reached a dead end; I don't want you to be guilty of the same thing, even if you aren't interested in participating in it), you can hopefully retract your previous statement as an error resulting from listening to Anagnorisis' slander rather than actually examining what I'd said in its original context. I eagerly await your honest retraction of the above three comments, or at least your justification for them.
• This discussion getting progressively sillier. "Rhetorically impale" him? I like to "pick minor fights"? Jesus. Getting involved in the Hugo Chávez page was my biggest mistake on Wikipedia yet. -Silence 18:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC. I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[1] or the Requests for comment/TDC[2] Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [3] I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presidents of Venezuela

I have nominated this article at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates as it is certainly one of the better heads of states articles I have seen. Good luck! --Oldak Quill 04:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

It must be tough being a deletionist—information is being added at a faster rate than they can remove it! I like this new trend towards "early life" articles; it's the same kind of thing I've been arguing for a long time, which is that there is no necessary limit to our coverage as long as the information is notable. So we should encourage splitting off of subarticles like this as a way to improve the depth of our coverage. If, as the deletionists are always warning, that eventually makes our coverage as detailed as a book-length biography, or even more detailed than that, guess what? That's a good thing. Everyking 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saffron

Hey, looks like some good work. I wonder, though, why are you keeping your talk page blank? Melchoir 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Took some time off my wikiholiday to vote on your FAC. I must say you're pretty brave to keep on pretending to assume good faith (PAGF) but is there really a point? Unless you've got some supernatural human tolerance, you just end up needing a year-long wikiholiday to bring pressure down. BTW I second Melchoir, it seems silly to me to keep blanking your talk page. --Valmi ✒ 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [4]

I was very surprised to see you calling me a deletionist and criticising my voting on your FAC candidate, on Everyking's talk page. Please, if you have a problem with what I am saying, talk to me personally. It's much more mature and polite and more likely to lead to a fruitful outcome. To better assess whether I am a 'deletionist', I suggest you look thoroughly through my contributions, and see what evidence you find for that viewpoint there, rather than just believing what one user says - that user happens to have a long standing grievance against me for reasons too trivial and ridiculous to describe (unless you really want to know) and has also been sactioned several times by the arbitration committee for being disruptive. Worldtraveller 02:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAC

Hi - I must admit that I had not been paying too much attention to the recent Chavez FAC, but I can see from your most recent comments that it must have been a rather stressful experience. I know you have put a lot of effort into it, but often the best thing to do in these sorts of situations is to walk away for a while and then look back with a bit more perspective. I hope it does not discourage you from continuing to contribute, or from bringing articles to FAC in future. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saffron PR

Will do. I've been shirking PR / FAC duties for a while now; that looks like a fun one to have a look-over. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chavez withdraw

I would like to have your permission to override your withdrawl of the Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez article at WP:FAC. If you do so, I agree to not involve you any further. This article is excellent and I believe Wikipedia will lose out by not gaining it as a Featured Article. The current nomination has majority support with alot of critique-and-response between you and another user, this shouldn't prevent its passage. So far you have dealt with the situation well, behaving diplomatically and genuinely. I understand that it has got the better of you (as it would me), but let me try to get it promoted none-the-less. I hope this experience hasn't disillusioned you too much—Wikipedians are too often harsh in their exchange. --Oldak Quill 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saffron

I see you have been rather busy, brushing it up for FAC. A small request: please could you use the preview function and save one edit, rather than saving many times in one session. Saving multiple edits swamps the page history, and so makes it difficult to see what is going on. Thanks.

Keep up the good work. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. It was just a habit. Thanks. Saravask 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's dance again sometime

For consistently high-quality contributions to articles concerning Venezuela, I give you this pixelated computer image that looks kind of like a medal. -Silence 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather overdue. For an exhaustively in-depth, beautifully well-organized, informative, interesting, well-written, and overall just phenomenal job, on the Venezuela articles in general and Hugo Chávez in particular...

Anyway. Stay classy. -Silence 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. Saravask 04:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA of Chavez, which is sure going to get cited in the bibliography of one book pretty soon. Am still hoping to talk to you or Saravask about Mr. C but fear that you're both sick of the subject and ready to move on. Could we talk about it at judylevin@earthlink.net  ??? Thanks