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.

Archive Map
Old Archives (pre-bot, up to somewhere in July 2007)
Year 2007
VII	VIII	IX	X
Year 2008
I	II	III		V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2009
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2010
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Year 2011
I	II	III	IV	V	VI
VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII

Archive for December 2008

RE:page move

The article was previoulsy moved from

I can still see myself as the creator. So I think even after moving November 2008 Mumbai attacks to 2008 Mumbai attacks, I'll still be the creator. :) Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats what I meant! ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Azam Amir Kasav

Hello, Thanks a lot. But I didn't see your vote there :) -- Bluptr (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your vote, well the voting is going on at two places, the main article and the moron terrorist's article ... :) Bluptr (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

The current lack of consensus for the page move is frustrating. I don't know why we had the luck of having a bunch of editors reply to the proposal with boderline-laughable rationals not based on WP guideline or common sense. I think if the article had a banner on top directing editors to the discussion things would have turned out differently. We would have gotten a better representation of established WP editors. If the proposal fails I think we should just reinitiate the proposal in a few weeks. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon 1 January 2009, the name change is an obvious step towards accuracy. In your statement above, you implicitly agreed with those people with "borderline-laughable rationales" b/c a few weeks from now is 1 January. :-) Hopefully you will be the one who gets to make the move, possibly offering you some closure WRT to the situation. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism

Template:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added new intro

Not to step on toes, but the intro at November 2008 Mumbai attacks has been edited severely over the last day, so I've added your new intro, and referenced it the best I could on short notice. Please see my post for a better explanation. Nice job on the summary though. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008 Mumbai attacks

Hi, Given the huge amount of traffic this article is currently receiving, I think that you should wait for more comments before restructuring the article. It also seems unrealistic to expect other editors to not edit the article for two hours while you restructure it. As a suggestion, why don't you do the restructure in your user space, and then ask people to comment on it before changing the article? Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 2 hours is too... long. You can restructure in your own user page and then keep on quickly adding it here in intervals. Thanks, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cerejota. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 07:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for your message. I admire your boldness and hope the restructure goes well - the structure you've proposed looks good. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review Gomez

I just want to clarify, first, yes, Gomez has used this IP address, but so have others. I'm not Gomez, yes I know him and it's complicated to explain, but I do believe in him. I will honor your requests to back off, but feel it's unfair that misinformation is put out there. As an example, and I will only discuss it here with you to abide by your wishes, Ryūlóng claims Jerry Avenaim has 12 sources. Let's look at them, 1) Lexar, Gomez is an original Lexar Elite Photographer, just like Avenaim. 2) Another source Ryūlóng claims is an article written by Alice Miller, editor of Studio Photography. Same writer, same editor wrote an article on Gomez at least a year before, it's listed on the links provide on his sources page. 3) Avenaim states in the second AfD that he and Gomez spoke together at the Photo Imaging Design Expo, which is one of the sources on his Wiki page that Ryūlóng claims. 4) Jason Schneider is quoted as two of those sources for articles that appeared in Shutterbug and Photo District News. Gomez's article in Leica World News was written by Jason Schneider, plus there is a link on the sources page of Gomez' site that is from PDN (Photo District News) on his Calumet 3-country tour last year. 5) Also, the Zugaphoto.tv DVD that is one of Avenaim's sources, Gomez is one of the 12 "stars" in that video, this was never mentioned before. [1] and comments from the director at the bottom, [2] Finally, Ryūlóng claims there was no first AfD. Totally wrong. I give you this information to clarify and mainly that's what I've been doing. Again, I will honor your wishes and focus on other Wikipedia articles and leave this alone. I thank you for placing it in deletion review and for being unbaised and fair. I just wish the facts would get straight. Here is one more link no one has discussed, New York Times (St. Martin's Press, Harper Collins, Avon) Bestselling Author, Lisa Kleypas on Gomez, [3] Here is the master list of references, [4] Thanks again, your words are understood clearly and I hope by posting on your talk page you will not take that as a negative as I plan on participating on Wikipedia more in other areas. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Just wanted to keep you posted, as I do want to participate in future editing here on Wiki and do not want to get banned. I was commented on my talk page [5] by Ryūlóng so I responded in what I believe to be a tactful response. I wanted to call your attention to it because of what is involved in the conversation and new source links. Again, I thank you for your fairness and hope you become an admin someday here as Wiki needs people like you. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay calm

Hi Cerejota: I know the discussion over at WT:WTA is frustrating at times, because we all have strong views on the subject. Thus far, however, it has been a really collegial and interesting discussion, and I hope that it continues to stay civil. Edit summaries like "it's NPOV, stupid" can give the wrong impression, even if no incivility is meant. Sadly, we have to be extra careful to keep our emotions directed at the subject and the arguments, not each other.

Ray (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ray (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, its a play on "it's the economy, stupid" mean in a light-hearted way! ;) --Cerejota (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That wasn't clear from the summary. Cheers, Ray (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

I have added sources and you keep reverting? What is going on? Please discuss in talk rather than reverting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed on talk, and you didn't add sources, you deleted sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai attacks images

I have finally uploaded some free images on the places of the attacks. My pictures are amateurish unfortunately. I have no good zoom, and the weather was hazy. And yes, I did remember to add the licensing, but I don't use the form to batch upload. I use a Perl script I wrote (commons:User:Nichalp/Upload_script) to do this automatically. Saves me loads of time. Feel free to add images around. I've posted a message that contains the links on the talk page. PS Unfortunately Kensplanet got my WP time wrong—its not Dec 2004 but Jan 2004. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Im sorry to bother you but i have nominated an article gor deletion entitled Bahro Suryoyo And for whatever reason its not shoing properly on the afd page can you please fix my mistake and tell me what i did wrong thanks

As per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination anonymous users cannot complete the nomination process, because they cannot create new articles. I suggest you express your opinion in the talk page of the article (Talk:Bahro Suryoyo) and get a registered editor to do the nomination. Or, better yet, get an account and join the community. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOLIDAYS!

MerryChristmas!

--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias y felicidades

Thanks. Why not?.. I really don't have an answer, I just like the userbox. Thanks for catching my misspelling at Guacimal, or mejor dicho Guasimal. Best Wishes for 2009.--Jmundo (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC) pd: I enjoyed the "bajense de la tribuna" comment at talk:Puerto Rico.[reply]

Is a real honor, but I don't think I have the stamina to go with the process right now, maybe in the future. Gracias, --Jmundo (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Terrorism Deletion Watchlist

Greetings, on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism - I'd like to invite you to add the Terrorism deletion watchlist to your watched articles, as it will allow you to be updated whenever a related article is proposed for deletion. In total, 40% of articles sent/added to Wikiproject Terrorism have requests for cleanup outstanding, whether better sourcing, orphaned or in need of images...please feel free to see the entire list. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diazepunk Afd Discussion

I just wanted to make it clear that I bear no animosity towards you with regards to our discussion in the Afd for Diazepunk. Some things about your posts led me to feel that you were accusing me of something, mostly the use of certain colloquialisms, so I may have been defensive. I admire the fact that you are strongly defending an article you believe is notable, and I hope you understand that my defense of my position is based on the fact that I don't see the notability in the sources. I don't want to simply take people's word for it, I think Wikipedia deserves a good argument over the merits of this article, because while the band is reputed to be notable, there isn't a lot of proof of it, at least in my opinion. I hope we can work together, or at least butt heads, in the future. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, wasn't that fun! ;) Actually, my hardheadedness is good for the article in question, at least in my mind, because now there is a record of why the article should be included as notable. I was hoping somebody would give me a reason to keep it, and you came through. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature?

Is the word "thanks" hardwired into your signature? I've seen some comments of yours on AFD, where adding that word makes your comment look either weird or sarcastic. You might want to consider doing something about it to avoid any misunderstandings. A cheerful thanks would also be quite misplaced when you're giving out a warning to a vandal - Mgm|^(talk) 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Mgm on this one. It comes off sarcastic even when the context of the post is not. This is the great disfortune of the internet, and written language in general, the emotional cues we get from spoken language just aren't present. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I saw a post of yours on ANI and it seemed quite sardonic. -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican cuisine

I will try to seek a "happy medium" if he continues reverting. By the way, are you into Puerto Rican currency? I'm planning a project and will need some backup, but Tony is helping me with a lot of articles already and Marcos & Eddie are MIA. Thus, I have been juggling you and Jmundo in my mind, what do you say? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that the final product will be more history than economics... The first step of what's in my mind will be merging Puerto Rican peso and Puerto Rican dollar into one, creating a new article titled Currencies of Puerto Rico. I have a book that was published by Western Bank, which covers virtually all the banknotes issued throughout our history. That should feed a lot of bytes into the article. Puerto Rican peso has a nice section covering "Subsequent currency issues in Puerto Rico", providing a nice modern perspective, which should be useful for the final product. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR; I don't think that an AFD is really nessesary, the articles are within our scope and completely abandoned by WP:NUMIS. The last member of said project to edit either page was Dove1950, all the way back in 2007. My guess is that they wouldn't oppose a merger either, mostly because if the article is promoted they get a GA as well. But, chances are that they will not even notice it until it is at WP:GAN. - Caribbean~H.Q.

Excelente :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, I'm under the impression that we should replace the common U.S. dollar infobox with something like the one used above (in peso). These dollars were more like "Americanized" pesos, their circulation was exclusive to Puerto Rico, featuring a bilingual design only printed here. Thus, its kind of inaccurate (misleading?) including the United States as official users if they were more of a regional token. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You raise a good point, perhaps we should focus on provincial currency. I mean the United States dollar article covers its history. We really don't need a huge infobox in two articles, a link in the lead and another in the prose should guide the reader properly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Best of luck with that, you will need it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading, we have more currency types than just the peso and dollar. The Spanish crown issued licenses to several entities, including a railroad company. Its interesting to note, two historians mentioned in it claim that Puerto Rico was the first place in America to print paper money, twenty years before Cuba, the Dominican Republic and even Spain (yeah, that is Europe). - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. So far so good. I have just one question for you. Are you some type of admin or something? I am just curious what exactly your role within wikipedia is. Thanks! Virgo1989 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redencion 911

Could you provide some more information so people can accurately consider the notability of the label? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards on "taking things the wrong way" on Talk:December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes

I spotted above that you blithely shrugged aside a comment with your explanation that it was meant "in a light-hearted way!". Is there any reason why on http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADecember_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes&diff=260605386&oldid=260604983 and your preceding edit that you automatically presume the worst in other people's words and hype the emotional situation for no benefit whatsoever rather than asking first if you believe there has been a grievous offence carried out against Wikipedia (and if so, state which rule). Shouting "NO U" in an edit log is hardly "neutral tone", either...
Apply the Golden Rule, please. Regards & Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Genocide 2008

I've seen that you're responsible for censoring the proposal to discuss the events of the 27th december 08 as a Genocide against the Palestinian People.

let me tell you something , you're action to freeze the discussion is despicable and downright arrogant.

Why? because you acted without any consensus or community agreement. In other words you're declaring that you're All-knowing , which from your self-righteous outpost gives you supreme authority to decide what is fringe and what's not.

How dare you even put a quality label on something you don't even understand?

I demand that you momentarily revoke your intervention , and let the free world decide what's Right or Wrong.

This is a very sensitive matter of historical importance , so you better not be biased!

I'm afraid i've to talk to Jimmy Wales if you don't stop your action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello to Jimmy when you talk with him. Tell him the flowers were lovely, but I rather have some of the speaking fees :D.--Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think those acts are like genocide, you can not say so on Wikipedia unless a high number of Resources refer to it as so. Wikipedia is not my or your thoughts diary :-). Have fun. Darwish07 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2008 Gaza Whatever Drama

Hey there, per your suggestion, I've raised the issues we're having over the Dec 2008 Gaza Strip incident article over here. Lot 49a^talk 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to address your comment that I'm not presenting my views on the talk page. I think that I was pretty clear on the article talk page that I think that the article should be named after the operation at least as an interim measure while we sort out consensus. I can easily see that you might have missed my comment given how much text there is in the arguments. [is the diff.] Lot 49a^talk 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page to keep the thread all in one place! Lot 49a^talk 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i guess you're right about WP:SNOW

hi Cerejota, i guess i should have re-read WP:SNOW. We may disagree about the main reasons why the proposed title has no chance of being the consensus result, but it's true that it's getting rather sidetracked into an interesting issue which nevertheless risks distracting from the issue of the article itself.

i agree with your point that if Israel was trying to "physically-biologically" destroy the Palestinians, then it would be showing dramatic incompetence incredibly inconsistent with Israel's known technological/military power. On the other hand, there is a legal debate on how wide to define genocide. To quote from the wikipedia entry genocide, "But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnical group was enough to qualify as genocide." i think it's on this basis that several notable people, such as Boyle and Pappe, argue that the plan is to make life so miserable for Palestinians that they prefer to move to Jordan or other countries in the region, not just to defend Israel against military attacks by Palestinians. My guess is that the point of the wider definition is that any plan and/or action to massively remove a given population from where it lives should qualify as a Very Bad Thing that needs a legal name and legal instruments/institutions to help get something done against it. Whether or not the legal use of the word genocide as well as popular use will evolve to match the narrower or wider definition is crystal-balling, so i won't try. However, as long as there is a sizable minority of legal/human rights experts who want to use the wider interpretation, we will have to accept that the word will continue to be used by some people for a quite wide range of Very Bad Things done by various governments and opposition forces around the world, not all of which are "physical-biological" destruction (mass murder). Boud (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening first move discussion

Why did you do it?

Do you actually thing it helps us move forward to continue adding to the ziggurat, or to have a more orderly discussion in a format that is standard? I mean, what purpose does it serve? I am trying to make sense of it. --Cerejota (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We were having a discussion. It wasn't finished. You closed it and told people not to comment on it. You then started a new one, with none of the information and comments from the previous one. In summary: That last move request wasn't in straw poll format, so let's start over. As I said in the edit summary: uh... no. Four people, including one person who disagrees with the "Operation" name, have stated that the reboot was unnecessary, that a discussion was already ongoing. Apparently, that's still not good enough for you. You're clearly trying to maneuver your choice in, what with the "silence implies consent" and "24hr deadline" nonsense. I'm not playing your games; I have said all I need to say to make my point. -- tariqabjotu 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Wikifan's objection to bot archiving, your current attitude is not very productive. I have given no indication in my editing and argument of operation in no other fashion than with transparency and usefulness. In fact, at times I felt we where moving ahead together in even different directions than from where we both started. But then I see those hopes slashed.

I know it might be hard, but would you believe me if I told you that I am not trying to hide anything? I have no problem with discussion or debate. In fact, I have answered all points raised etc. I am not trying to hide a discussion, but highlight the fact that we need to make a decision. Perhaps I have been cumbersome and too bold, but being treated the way that Wikifan has treated me and that now you seem to join is really not good and conducive to any understanding or article quality. We are not enemies and shouldn't be enemies nor is this the end of the world.

I am not playing a game and your accusation is hurtful and unproductive - I am trying to be clear and to follow what policies require me to do, to seek to understand the other side. Again, that we disagree doesn't mean that we cannot work work together, or that we can convince each other. The issue of my reversion of a move by another user is already in Dispute Resolution, to keep bringing it up even in unrelated discussions, or to go on strike from other productive things that have to happen in the article is an attitude I do not understand - it strikes me as disrespectful of the dispute resolution process, and of the need to edit.

I can't say that I don't listen. Man, I have gone as far as not writing my usual "Thanks!" when addressing you as a sign of respect because you mentioned you took it the wrong way. (and I write that even when it doesn't make much sense, its a tick) Why you remain this way towards me? Why do you fail to assume good faith? --Cerejota (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm one of the people who disagrees with "Operation" and it was not me who said that the reboot was not necessary. i didn't speak up at that point because i didn't see any sign that we were getting ready for a structured discussion. i think that Cerejota's present approach is a good one. Boud (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks a lot for your efforts on the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes article. You're bold, neutral, and used to getting things done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwish07 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan12345

Sorry, I'm not in much of a position to mediate, I'll be travelling for a few days. Good luck! Lot 49a^talk 17:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi philosophers

Your help on the article page will be appreciated. There are two people reverting changes, and two arguing for strict guidelines, and only me actually adding references to the list. It is a stalemate. Your help is needed to enforce strict inclusion criteria, and casting a vote for a better title would help. The most popular so far with two votes is: "Nazi ideologues". I trimmed off all the people who were just Nazi party members, and the ones who wrote about Mussolini. I deleted all the artists and philosophers supressed by teh Nazis, since they dodn't contribute to their ideology, but that section keeps getting readded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication

Per this request for userfication I have moved the article Excel Corruption to User:Cerejota/Excel Corruption. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]