User talk:JRSP/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hugo Chavez

Your name was the last on the page so I am hoping you can assist me. Please fix the following things on the article if you can.

Citation There is a request for a citation under Early Life, the sentence can be sourced to The Observer, May 7th 2006, The new kid in the barrio. I do not seem to be able to put this in the article, or know how. Please include if possible. There is a link I found on the internet to the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/may/07/featuresreview.review

Delete Can someone also delete the last thing added to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=190976084&oldid=190271538 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N4GMiraflores (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2008

Thank you for adding the news story to the article. I have been able to use your formatting for an other article. I have a question though, if I want to use a book for a source, how do I format the code you used for the news story? There wasn't a field for page and I do not have a website for it. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about format, just add the relevant info: Author, title, page number, etc. You can also check {{citebook}}. JRSP (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Democratic socialism advocates socialism as a basis for the economy and democracy as a governing principle." Hugo Chavez has ruled by decree. No matter your point of view, that isn't democratic.

If the article said that he "claims to promote a doctrine of democratic socialism," then it would be correct, but it's incorrect to say that he does promote democratic socialism. SteveSims (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maria de Lujan Telpuk

I see you made several edit to Maletinazo and thought you might want to contribute to Maria de Lujan Telpuk before it appears on the main page as part of WP:DYK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to welcome message

Thank your welcome message! TriniMuñoz (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, have a good time editing wikipedia. JRSP (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome message

Thanks for your 'welcome' message JRSP. I noticed that, ignoring those Wikipedia policies you are reminding of, you have summarily reverted all my edits. I suggest you visit any English dictionary, given that that language is not your mother tongue, and revise definitions of libel. It can be broadly defined as the act of defamation by written words. I presume your misunderstanding comes from the adjective I have used to describe Fidel Castro. In this instance I would advice you again to hit the dictionary, and while you are at it the history books, and reminds us when was it that Fidel Castro was elected president of Cuba. As per verifiability, the consensus is that there have not been free and transparent elections in Cuba since Castro ousted the previous dictator in 1959, furthermore the country is not even a democracy, ergo Castro embodies the definition of dictator perfectly. Now you may disagree with it, but historicity and facts are stacked against you, however much you pretend to ignore them. I have also noticed your wholesale violation of Wikipedia principles, principles which you adhere to only when useful for torpedoing other people's edits. The Venezuela Information Office, which you are defending so feverishly, is a propaganda and lobby office completely funded by Hugo Chavez's government. For some reason the entry I created about the Venezuela Information Office was immediately deleted, despite the fact that every remark made in the entry was supported by evidence from the US Department of Justice see here. Furthermore, the fact that the Venezuela Information office receives its funding from the government of Venezuela can be read in its own website, as it is mandatory by law to disclaim source of funding, given that its employees are trying to change US foreign policy regarding Venezuela by lobbying US Congressmen and Senators.Alekboyd (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected. I encourage you and the editor(s) in dispute to use this time to come to a consensus on the article's talk page. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009

Thanks for your comment. Please confine article content discussions to the article talk pages so that others can participate in the discussion. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez

Just because the Hugo Chávez article has a sister article for economic issues doesn't mean the main article can't have the short, one paragraph summary that I put there. The things that I added are very relevant - people who study economics understand that these things are the difference between socialism and communism. Chavez claims to be a socialist, but he is really a communist. Threatening farmers is a sign of communism, not socialism. Treating toilet paper as a luxury is a sign of communsim, not socialism. Communists like to harasss farmers - socialists don't. Chavez has never called himself a communist, but these actions on his part prove that he is one, and they should be mentioned in this summary.

I put a lot of effort into writing the economic part of the main article. I don't mind that a sister article was spun off, but at least please let me write a brief summary of the most important parts for a single paragrpah in the main article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Talk:Hugo Chávez is a better place for this discussion. JRSP (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

User Alekboyd is editor and founder of VCRISIS.COM. He has worked as a lobbyist in the past. [1] Is there a conflict of interest? Dynablaster (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And his personal website, which appears unsound, is used as a source on Hands Off Venezuela. [2] Dynablaster (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Although his blog clearly has an anti-Chávez bias I don't think this is WP:COI, AFAIK he's not affiliated to any Venezuelan opposition party. He's not very well known here in Venezuela as he usually blogs in English. He is (or was) affiliated to Human Rights Foundation[3] an organization founded by Thor Halvorssen Mendoza who happens to be a cousin of Leopoldo López, the latter is a well known opposition figure. His blog in the article on HoV is sourcing an info that doesn't appear to be contentious so it could be acceptable, perhaps you can leave a note there asking editors for a better source. JRSP (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

11 de Abril Video

I find it ironic that someone would censure a video of the actual events of April 11, 2002 in Caracas and even ask the absurd question "Is this video notable?". Did you even watch the video before deciding to censure it? I believe it gives an accurate depicton of the events as they unfolded from the perspective of a couple of foreigners. Much less "produced" and slanted than the other video you have posted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringo1983 (talk • contribs)

External links must be published by a secondary reliable source. I don't know what you mean by "the other video that [I] have posted". And take it easy, the Bold-reverse-discuss cycle is normal WP business. JRSP (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification

Notice: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#censorship_and_edit_war_in_several_article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. JRSP (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Request for mediation filled by User:LeUrsidae96. JRSP (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just noticed you reverted me on Caracas; thanks for that. I mostly watch science and engineering articles, where hooligans constantly change, dunno, the Young's modulus of carbon steel or something, so I reverted without looking it up. Thanks for fixing my error, Awickert (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. There are lots of anons changing demographical data too but this one got the figure right according to citypopulation.de; however, as I told you in the edit summary the extent of the conurbation is not clear so 6 million could be OK too. JRSP (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was it, I've heard five and six and others and never tried to track down a good source, so thanks for keeping it consistent and referenced. Awickert (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Weisbrot

I take issue with your wholesale deletion of my edits--my data is sourced, it isn't POV. The POV of the subject is entirely fair material to post. It identifies the subject. Before you make other wholesale deletions we better discuss this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.93.112 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your data in not sourced to reliable sources, please check the guidelines. JRSP (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you have received 3RR warnings before. Kindly do not undo these edits again. The data is sources to reliable sources... The Amazon book review is quite reliable, it will reliably be there for the foreseeable future. The blog 'no oil for pacifists' is noted for its rigorous documentation of facts, the blog has been in existence for over five years and has more than 3200 postings. As to your contention that there is something wrong with the word 'liberal' that is something we can discuss. Wholesale deletion of these reference and these edits is not acceptable. People are coming here to learn about Mark Weisbrot they want to get all the facts. The fact is the man is a liberal economist, and that is not in dispute. If you have some alternate language you would like to propose I am listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.10.182 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC) That goes for the other organizations as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.10.182 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I find out you are running around undoing every thing that I type into wikipedia -- !!! the gall!!!

The question here is not wether the source is a blog -- and the sources you are deleting some are blogs, some are book reviews, some are noted news sources, you are just doing wholesale deletion without thought. I'm going to call mediation if you do it again. Especially chasing me around to undo everything I write on here -- out of line. Back to the point -- the question here is whether the information is contentious, whether there is a legal issue, and whether or not the material is fair. Are you a lawyer? Unless you practice Wikipedia law then you cannot comment on the legal aspects. So I assert that a label such as 'liberal' or left-leaning is entirely appropriate if that is what the individual, in fact, is, and it is not contentious. Especially when the individual in question is attempting to pass himself/herself off as 'independent' or non-partisan, then places like wikipedia must do the service of pointing readers to a BALANCED set of views, not a one-sided view.

Kindly have the discussion with me and do not undo my edits again or I will call for mediation and bring a great deal of attention to you and your front door. Weisbrot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.10.182 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have received these warnings before and now you get another one.
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altoids Man (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally hold the opposite view from JRSP, and happen to have not yet taken his talk page off of my watch list. I will review the reverts and comment as time permits. A few general rules though:

• Avoid blogs, self-published sources, and opinion pieces
• Qualify everything
• Avoid synthesis, the source needs to say it explicitly

Awickert (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Source needed

Since you are fluent in Spanish, could you find a source for this? These students are editing through an IP from Cuba, mostly about football... Fred Talk 23:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me try first with English language sources from Pakistan. JRSP (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC at International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup -- Rico 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC regarding international reaction to Honduran military coup article

JRSP, please forgive my bothering you, but I would appreciate your comment at this RfC at the International Reaction to honduran military coup page regarding the edit discussed there:

Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#RfC:_Which_is_the_better_condensed_version

Thank you! Moogwrench (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

Once again, sorry for bothering you, but there has been a lot of revert activity regarding this issue, and I thought you might like to opine. I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you removed useful information

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page#Help.2C_someone_has_changed_the_article_I_wrote_and_I_disagree.3F . I was told to discuss it with you here. Saduski J (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you are interested in Venezuela as well. I didn't know you could find other editors interested in subjects here. How do I find other editors who are interested in it, or advertise I'm interested? Is there an "index of interests"? Saduski J (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check Chacon's article talk page. That's a better place for discussing this as we can involve other editors that might be watching the article. I already opened a new topic there regarding our disagreement.
If you want to "advertise" the article, you may try WikiProject Venezuela. But just be patient, involved editors will come eventually. JRSP (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

on Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Both of you. There is a talk page, explain and discuss there instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? At this moment I have only edited that article 3 times since its creation. JRSP (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's all bouncing back and forth about whether it's separate in the prison or not. I see the same changes getting added and reverted back and forth several times. That's not constructive, you two need to discuss the issue to reach a conclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not bouncing back and forth. I reverted and added an extra reference supporting my reversion; the other user apparently did not notice the ref and reverted back to his version, deleting the new reference. I reverted back and quoted what the reference said in my edit summary and that has been all. JRSP (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim that she was in a separate section has been added and removed four times. I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm saying stop just reverting edits, discuss instead and try to reach agreements. And I didn't tell only you. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If there was a previous edit war involving other editors, that's another story; however, you cannot say I'm edit warring in that article. If you have a concern about editors edit warring on that article, the place to raise that concern is the article's talk page. JRSP (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reversions without discussion is an edit war, even if there are more than one person involved in it. Maybe you got involved by mistake because you were not aware of it. This is understandable. But that doesn't change the facts that this section was reverted back and forth some eight times without anybody discussing it. That is, by the definitions used by Wikipedia, an edit war. And you, knowingly or not, was involved in it. And what I did was ask people to discuss the issue instead of just change it back and forth. Is that really too much to ask? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There was an edit war involving two other editors. I noticed that the dispute was about the accessibility of a source so I researched, found another source, reverted to the version consistent with the source I found and added the new reference. When I got reverted, I assumed that the other editor had not noticed the new source and reverted back, highlighting in my edit summary the pertinent quote. This is not edit war. JRSP (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is the "non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win...". I don't consider that adding a source is "non-productive"; in fact it helps ending the edit war. JRSP (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidently it *is* to much to ask that you discuss changes concerning an edit war on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the ironical tone is necessary. As I told you before, I added a source, another user reverted me and my first guess was assuming that the other user had not noticed I added a new source and those two have been my only recent edits to the article. JRSP (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That was not irony, it was sarcasm. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis

Hi, thanks for commenting on Venezuelanalysis at WP:RSN. I've actually started a new section to summarise and refocus: WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis Reboot - perhaps you could comment there? (I'm asking everyone who participated in the old WP:TLDR thread.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 13:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary)

JRSP, User:Steve, who is working on the film in Sandbox, has a question here that I can't answer; perhaps you can? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Chavez

By the way, several editors have banded together on the Chavez article to add the POV tags and try to remove some kind of "bias" which they are not being kind enough to explain. They have not gotten a consensus on putting those tags back and are referring to an inconclusive talk that happened in February. Your attention to these issues would be appreciated. Best wishes,ValenShephard (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JRSP was not the editor who removed the tags; he typically knows better than to edit in an obviously tendentious manner, although he doesn't often object when others do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, but that was not my main point.ValenShephard (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your main point is covered by WP:CANVASS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Venezuela

Hola, estamos creando Wikimedia Venezuela, ¿te gustaría participar? Wikimedia Venezuela (WM-VE) es una iniciativa para crear una asociación civil que promueva los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia en Venezuela. Buscamos a gente comprometida en Wikipedia u otros proyectos para incorporarse y tener un primer encuentro el 14 de mayo (10.º aniversario de Wikipedia en español). Más información: a través de nuestro correo electrónico info@wikimedia.org.ve, nuestra página http://www.wikimedia.org.ve o por medio del IRC, entrando a esta dirección. Saludos --Oscar_. (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Whose POV?

Hello. This note pertains to your reversal of my small edit of last June 16 to the Venezuela article, which you did a few hours later, stating: "rv, POV, no reason to believe that democratic period ended in 1998". I have four comments to make about that.

1) Either you, despite being a Venezuelan, have been utterly disconnected from the events in Venezuela for the last 13 years, meaning that you live in a remote, faraway location (Sri Lanka, or Bora Bora, perhaps?), or

2) ...you seem to have a very strange or twisted concept about what Democracy is, despite explicitly stating in your user page that you specialize in Venezuelan politics (interesting!); or

3) ...your assertion about there being "no reason to believe that democratic period ended in 1998" is no doubt your own POV, and not necessarily the truth. Ergo, your "truth" is not per force superior to or better than mine, making your reversal unfounded. Which leads me to speculate that...

4) ...you are a chavista. This would explain the matter. It also would make further discussion futile.

Usted, acaso más que nadie, sabe perfectamente que NO tiene razón, al menos en este caso. El presente régimen en Venezuela NO es una democracia, ni remotamente.

(Trans.:) You know better than most that you are NOT right, at least in this case. The current regime in Venezuela is NOT a democracy, not even close. --AVM (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of what you or I think, but what reliable sources say. Most reliable sources agree that Venezuela is a democracy. Even the US State Department says from time to time that "Venezuelan democracy is in peril", how can something that doesn't exist be in peril? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --JRSP (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

gentil solicitud de traducción y mejoría por University of the Andes (Venezuela) y José Gregorio Hernández, gracias de verdadero corazón por adelantado

Muy Feliz domingo a ti, te escribo de Calabria y con el corazón de Nuestra Venezuela Querida. ante todo para saludarte como saludaría un querido ser mío. Sabes que tengo mucha consideración y affeto por Nuestra Venezuela. aunque les he nacido en Calabria y mis antepasados fueron polacos y de varios partos de Europa.

Gracias a un conocido socialnetwork en el 2009 he podido conocer además de mi querida familia, también una ciudad muy bonita y preciosa: Santiago de los Caballeros de Mérida, o sencillamente Mérida. aquí en un feo período de mi vida, cuando es decir caí enfermo por una enfermedad que nos golpea jóvenes: la anorexia. encontré consuelo gracias a estas personas, estudiantes y variados chicos y chicas de la Universidad de los Andes. sólo sus lograron hacerme restablecer de aquellos momentos oscuros, y de la soledad de la hospitalización hogareña, y del abandono de quien creí a amigo.

Cada día mi muro fue tapizado de mensajes de paz y esperanza, ánimo y mucho de bonito una persona puede dar. algunas familias me tienen prácticamente adoptado como mascota.

El Regalo más bonito ha llegado más allá de Feria del Sol, dónde organizadores y reinas de belleza se preocuparon mi salud, también de un joven ángel, mi querida amiga que me mandó el regalo de la Esperanza: la Virgen de Coromoto, Patrona de Venezuela. de que ahora soy un pegado fiel, en unión al Médico de los Pobres: José Gregorio Hernandez. ése fue... en cierto sentido, el que también estuvo cerca de mí.. el día que caí enfermo y me condujo hasta a la curación ocurrida el 26 de agosto de 2009, casi dos meses después del acontecimiento y el mismo día en que de Mérida, mi ángel mandó a la Virgen

después de tenerte contado eso, fue preciso hacerlo, por mi conciencia y respeto hacia Nuestro Pueblo y los corazones de aquellas personas, que están fijos y estarán para siempre fijos en mi mente.

te pregunto de ayudarme a mejorar el artículo sobre la universidad y si puedes y también quieres de mejorar al Médico de los Pobres, Un San por Un Pueblo.

Naturalmente tu generosidad y amabilidad de buen venezolano será bien recompensada.. no titubear a preguntar me ayudo si necesita... puedo ayudarte con un artículo de tu interés en italiano, siciliano y así a seguir. ¡tengo aquí muchas amistades en las Wikipedias del Viejo Continente.. y si quieres estamos a la orden!

ciertamente de un cierta ayuda tuyo te agradezco en antelación de verdadero corazón... y que Dios te Bendiga a ti y a los tuyos queridos. y qué siempre Velas sobre Venezuela. Paz y Bien para Ti, Luigi Salvatore--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

perdona mi español feo..pero soy autidacto y estoy siguendo un curso para mejorarlo :)--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)