Talk:Luis Palés Matos

Unreferences

A lot of unreferenced info was removed on this edit. Anyone feel free to check the history and restore anything that can be attributed to a reliable independent source.--damiens.rf 20:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We allow un-referenced information if the information is not in dispute - WP:IAR. This is not a BLP. Are you disputing the factual accuracy of this information? Based on what? --Cerejota (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't. And yes, I'm disputing it. I don't have to elaborate a reason. --damiens.rf 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do, again, WP:IAR. However, its true you don't have to elaborate a reason, but why not do it? Why not have collegiality? Why not engage the topic in a constructive way? --Cerejota (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of these articles are written with an enthusiastic nationalist feeling. Wikipedia should not reflect this. While this feeling is helpful as a motivation for writing new articles, a cool-headed neutral approach should be used to balance this, and the iterations will bring us better articles. My experience shows that. --damiens.rf 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, and definitely are correct on the need for NPOV (hell, am a WP:TRIFECTA guy), but have you given it any thought that perhaps there are other means to achieve the same ends? BTW, although "nationalist" feeling might inform some of the edits, and definitely new article creation, there is also the clash between the old wikipedia (of which I only saw the end), and the new wikipedia (which I saw from the start). In the old wikipedia, there was a lot leeway, specially as I mentioned when there was no dispute. Likewise with admin status, and admin was generally someone Jimbo trusted, or that those who Jimbo trusted themselves trusted, no need to know policy, have a ton of edits or anything like that. So I see a clash between the two styles, too - its not all about "protecting the wiki" - Marine also feels he is protecting the wiki from a deletionist with no understanding of the topic. I continue to invite you to reconsider your position, be more collegial, join the project, discuss edits, and furthermore, gain some actual insight into the topic. For example, how can you verify sources or find them if you do not speak Spanish? And google translate is awful, and I tell you this as a polyglot... you get my point? --Cerejota (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, read the essay I started a while ago WP:POOR, and have a look at this WP:CSB, Countering Systemic Bias. It is an important part of NPOV to understand and manage the existence of systemic bias. Your edits, however well intentioned, seem biased in that sence, and not making any effort to assuage or calm that impression isn't helping.--Cerejota (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I can perfectly read Spanish. It's frustrating talking with you when you go with so many wrong assumptions.

What do you mean by "Joining the project"? Do you want me to add my name to the Wikiproject page? How would that change anything. I can do that if you think it will be of any help. --damiens.rf 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good step, but more than that, is join, interact, discuss. If you speak Spanish, say so in your user page - it is not an incorrect assumption to make that you do not speak Spanish as this is after all English wikipedia. If you see something you don't like, ask someone else in the project to consider it... collaboration is always better than gunning it alone. And less drama means more editing... more editing means more GA and FA... --Cerejota (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is simply not productive. If I see something "I don't like" (actually, something I believe goes against some guideline), I'll fix it. If someone disagrees, we can talk. Sometimes -- as in this very case -- I preemptively start a discussion about my changes in the article's talk page. You want to give the PR Wikiproject too much power. --damiens.rf 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered that deletion, removal, confrontation, and other such things are not the only way to fix problems? That perhaps there are more productive alternatives? For example, finding sources, tagging, raising concerns in the wikiproject, etc. Its not about giving power to the wikiproject, is about using the wikiproject for the purpose it is meant for, which is to centralize concerns, draw community attention, and improve the encyclopedia. You seem (I am not saying you are) failing to assume good faith when you approach matters in such an individualistic manner, because your actions and arguments seem to be an attack on the good faith of others. For example, saying things are "written with an enthusiastic nationalist feeling" is perhaps true, but is it productive? Going around examining every action that Marine has taken perhaps improves the encyclopedia, but is it wise? --Cerejota (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I do find sources myself sometimes, I do a lot of tagging, and I raise concerns in talk pages more than any other member of the Wikiproject. I do not approach things in individualistic manners. When I fix some article, nominate some image for deletion, tag some sentence, I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of the original author. You guys should stop taking everything so personal. As long as no one owns any article, and not even any Wikiproject owns any article, there's nothing personal in fixing, discussing, disputing or disagreeing about some content.

Please, you'll have to raise your fact-checking standards if you plan to continue this dialog. Here and in other forums, you're constantly attributing me bad behaviors that I'm not guilt of. It's frustrating. --damiens.rf 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What is frustrating is to see uncontroversial information removed because a web-available, English language source cannot be found immediately - its not about not having high fact-checking standards, is that fact-checking is not a bright-line for inclusion or exclusion. Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically says "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material", while WP:BURDEN precisely suggests that you do what I am asking you do - to take into account the relative benefits of removal or inclusion of unsourced information, and only advises immediate removal for BLPs.

You have done some good edits, such as changing the more peacocky wording in the article, but the fact is nothing here can be challenged as controversial.

I do apologize for beating the dead horse in terms of your behavior in this talk page, because it is true it is not the forum for that and I can see how it can be frustrating for you to be reminded that your behavior is under examination - however, I do find it interesting that you find being questioned as to your actions "frustrating", while you seem incapable to understand why Marine might find dealing with you frustrating for the same reasons. Having some empathy and kindness can lead to a better editing environment, and perhaps you should understand that if you feel "frustrated", so might others, because of your own behavior. --Cerejota (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)