User talk:Cerejota/Archives/2007/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cerejota. 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. |
Factory farming RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/factory_farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Jav43 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I woke up this morning and saw that I was being accused of copyvio. Have you read WP:NFC? Copyvio was not a valid reason for deletion here. The reason should have been that there is a better, free equivalent, as it provided a good fair use rationale, as requested in WP:NFC. I'm going to assume good faith, but you should be more careful when accusing someone of copyvio. I take copyright laws very seriously, and I would never violate them. Also, please don't template the regulars. Thank you. --Eddie 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've also replied to your little comment here, "mi pana". --Eddie 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am responding in his talk page.--Cerejota 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- And again, I have replied here. --Eddie 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1.) I'll re-read WP:NFC, but I'll doubt I'll find anything different.
- 2.) How am I supposed to cool down when I'm being accused of breaking the law!?! How was the rationale not a good one? It covered all the bases required by WP:NFC. I'll be asking Marcos once again, but I'm sure it was alright.
- 3.) Yes, WP:DTTR is an opinion essay, but so is WP:SNOW, and it is one of the most commonly used excuses to ignore all rules, or do you not believe in ignoring all rules?
- 4.) Again, I am hostile because I'm being accused of breaking the law.
- Hope that replies to your comments. I still fail to see why it is a copyvio. I'll re-read WP:NFC, but I'll doubt I'll find anything different. --Eddie 14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I'll ask an admin. Perhaps Tony will be able to explain to me why it was a copyvio? --Eddie 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- You say "It is not enough to provide a fair use rationale, but the rationale must fit the allowed ones." The fair use rationale met the requirements. I also provided a link to where I got it. How is that not enough? That is all I need to know. --Eddie 14:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've contacted Tony here. --Eddie 14:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK here's an outside view of the situation. The photo itself was unquestionably copyrighted, but this isn't what is being disputed here. Eddie uploaded the image under a claim of fair use because it appeared at that time that no free alternative of the photo was available and could not be acquired since the person in question had died. Admittedly this lacked a rationale, but this was later added by Mtmelendez. Now it has become apparent now that there is a free alternative image of this player available and so rightly the image in question is no longer being used. However, the image was previously being used under a fair claim of fair use which is specifically allowed by policy in certain circumstances. Therefore, accusing Eddie of a "blatant copyright infringement" and leaving him a template threatening blocking was entirely uncalled for. It would have been much better to point out a free alternative exists, put that in the article and then tag this version as orphaned fair use. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 14:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so thats why... since when did that template go so bite? My apologies then! I will take care to re-read templates before posting em. I still think the image should be deleted.--Cerejota 14:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was deleted because of the new, free image that's being used in the article. --Eddie 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so thats why... since when did that template go so bite? My apologies then! I will take care to re-read templates before posting em. I still think the image should be deleted.--Cerejota 14:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK here's an outside view of the situation. The photo itself was unquestionably copyrighted, but this isn't what is being disputed here. Eddie uploaded the image under a claim of fair use because it appeared at that time that no free alternative of the photo was available and could not be acquired since the person in question had died. Admittedly this lacked a rationale, but this was later added by Mtmelendez. Now it has become apparent now that there is a free alternative image of this player available and so rightly the image in question is no longer being used. However, the image was previously being used under a fair claim of fair use which is specifically allowed by policy in certain circumstances. Therefore, accusing Eddie of a "blatant copyright infringement" and leaving him a template threatening blocking was entirely uncalled for. It would have been much better to point out a free alternative exists, put that in the article and then tag this version as orphaned fair use. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 14:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've contacted Tony here. --Eddie 14:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- You say "It is not enough to provide a fair use rationale, but the rationale must fit the allowed ones." The fair use rationale met the requirements. I also provided a link to where I got it. How is that not enough? That is all I need to know. --Eddie 14:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I'll ask an admin. Perhaps Tony will be able to explain to me why it was a copyvio? --Eddie 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Spurious merge tags
Cerejota: as an experienced Wikipedia editor you certainly know that a merge tags cannot be capriciously added without discussion as a means of defacing articles, and that any discussion should be accompanied by serious rationales, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am removing, and please do not restore. Thanks!--Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Replying in his talk page.--Cerejota 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply on the article Talk: pages please. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but this is a personal attack issue that belongs in you talk page.--Cerejota 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- If so, your initial claim that I had "capriciously deleted" tags etc. was also a "personal attack". Now, please don't post on my Talk: page regarding this issue again, take your issue to the appropriate article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- So please read the appropriate talk page Talk:Allegations of apartheid before accusing me of placing tags without discussion. And furthermore, I have not accused anyone of "capriciously deleting" anything, please see the history. I did say "incorrectly" once.--Cerejota 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-read your earlier comment: "capriciously deleted". Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That was not directed a you personally, but I can see why you might understand it as such. I apologize. However the intent is to generate discussion, which is what the process requires, rather than deletion without discussion.--Cerejota 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- And when you claimed that I was taking actions that I knew were wrong? That wasn't a personal attack either? Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a personal attack. You are still wrong in not letting the merge discussion happen, and in not participating in it.
And you violated WP:3RR just now.miscount--Cerejota 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a personal attack. You are still wrong in not letting the merge discussion happen, and in not participating in it.
- And when you claimed that I was taking actions that I knew were wrong? That wasn't a personal attack either? Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That was not directed a you personally, but I can see why you might understand it as such. I apologize. However the intent is to generate discussion, which is what the process requires, rather than deletion without discussion.--Cerejota 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please re-read your earlier comment: "capriciously deleted". Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- So please read the appropriate talk page Talk:Allegations of apartheid before accusing me of placing tags without discussion. And furthermore, I have not accused anyone of "capriciously deleting" anything, please see the history. I did say "incorrectly" once.--Cerejota 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- If so, your initial claim that I had "capriciously deleted" tags etc. was also a "personal attack". Now, please don't post on my Talk: page regarding this issue again, take your issue to the appropriate article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but this is a personal attack issue that belongs in you talk page.--Cerejota 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Reply on the article Talk: pages please. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Janet Reno HS tag
OK, the point is still the same. It's 4 am give me some bit of a break. So change students and teachers to school district staff. My opinion still stays the same. But I will add a PS. Postcard Cathy 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR violation
By removing all the material that I (and others) added to the Allegations of French apartheid article, you have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Jayjg (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jayjg, come on... give me a break. I didn't violate 3RR and you know it. I didn't remove content, I removed extensive quotes that made the article a quotefarm. How this deters the development of a better encyclopedia is beyond me.--Cerejota 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Quotes are, in fact, content. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- And water gets you wet. :D--Cerejota 23:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Quotes are, in fact, content. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
dropping by
How are things going with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-17 Adolescent sexual behavior? Do you have any questions or concerns? Vassyana 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Things move quickly on that deletion discussion, but I'm wondering if you might explain why you think the relationships implied by See also sections need to be sourceable, but relationships implied by navigation templates do not? Thanks.--G-Dett 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I responded here.--Cerejota 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detailed response Cerejota. Granted your position is nuanced, but its key distinction seems to be this: you regard See Also links as content, and navigation templates as purely "meta." Why, if I may ask? What is this distinction based on? I can't find support for it on policy pages or in precedent, and frankly it just doesn't have the ring of common sense to me. As you wrote on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid page, "if we see also Crime of apartheid we are telling our readers that the 'crime of apartheid' is somewhat related to the 'Allegations of Israeli apartheid': that is a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation' if the connection is not made by reliable and verifiable sources." The nav-box does exactly the same thing (only more prominently), and hits exactly the same snag: it tells readers the moment they come to the page that "allegations of Israeli apartheid" are related to "allegations of French apartheid" and so on, which is a very novel narrative indeed.
- Other aspects of your post are worth discussing, but this is the core issue with regards to the TfD discussion.--G-Dett 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cerejota,
I've considerably re-worked the material, cut down on some of the quotes, added new material, and fixed the footnotes. Would you mind taking a look at the current version and using that as a basis for your own version? Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can you please tell us why did you moved the page? --Andersmusician VOTE 01:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks
Please don't post personal attacks against other users, as you just did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid ([1]). I'd like to remind you of our no personal attacks policy and request that you refrain from such attacks in future. -- ChrisO 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since when sarcasm is a personal attack? Lighten up!--Cerejota 02:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Your move
Hi Cerejota. I am sure you meant well, but it would help if you discuss such moves on the talk page, and obtain consensus, prior to executing them in the future. Thanks, Crum375 00:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hey just being bold... this as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_notable_collegiate_a_cappella_groups. Someone used the incorrect existence of "notable" in list titles as an argument for keep. I am fixing the obvious mistake of others.--Cerejota 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Being bold is fine, but this one is not 'listcruft'. We have our own dedicated inclusion guideline, plus bolded emphasis on the wikilinked articles of each list item to prove it's notable enough. How many lists do you know on WP that have their own dedicated inclusion guidelines? Crum375 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Similar complaint from me regarding List of notable tropical cyclones. I've reverted your move, but my summary was too long. Here's basically what I said - "it is impossible to list every single TC ever, it is currently being attempted on a smaller scale at List of named tropical cyclones. Please discuss before unilaterally moving, these TCs are more 'notable' than others for certain reasons, and hence they're listed here." Some tropical cyclones are inherently going to be more notable than others, although each on their own is notable. The list attempts to list those that are more notable for deaths, significance etc. v.s. a TC that did nothing. Cheers. – Chacor 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Accusations?
Do you have the same problems as SV, Crum, and Localzuk? Read [2]. This is re: (cur) (last) 05:06, 20 July 2007 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (227,126 bytes) (→A suggestion - please do not break up other's constributions, any further reformating will be considered vandalism) (undo)
For the record, the breaking up I did was accidental, although that is not relevant to your strange jump to accusations of vandalism. Jav43 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't accuse you of anything. Please re-read what I wrote. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please comment
This is a message for all regulars at the “apartheid” AfD series. I believe there may have been a breakthrough. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. --Targeman 02:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Industrial agriculture (animals)
I'm sure Industrial agriculture (animals) can be improved. But please improve it by adding to it. WAS 4.250 08:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: allegations of apartheid template
Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I've created three more versions of the template, which can be seen at my sandbox. I'd be more or less fine with any of them (especially 1 and 3). I like the idea of linking to the sections for countries in the main article, and I hope that the first template is an elegant solution for that. Whichever you like best (or a mix of two, etc.), please write back. Cheers, GracenotesT § 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. A bit late. I'll mention version 3 on the template talk page to see if there are any objections. Cheers, GracenotesT § 13:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming.
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
|
Merida AfD
Hi,
I didn't close the AfD; User:Stephen did. I cannot self-overturn a closing I did not make. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy Constitution Day!
File:Escudo de Puerto Rico.jpg Happy Day of the Constitution! Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Boricuaeddie 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you're working on that article. As you may have seen, i'm not new in this project, and i'm trying to improve this article, the more seriously that i can. I do not want to provoke any altercations that are, sadly, very common on that sort of articles, and which would prevent any serious work on it. I answered you on the talk page, i'd like your help to work properly on this.
(i noticed you removed the {{pov}} from the page, is it common here ? I mean is explaining the fact that we're working on the article to improve its neutrality is redundant ? I wouldnt have ever though so on wp:fr. Plus Allegations of Israeli apartheid has both ?! )
NicDumZ ~ 13:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I re-writed the whole paragraph, taking another approach. You might want to delete your comments that were related to the previous version. NicDumZ ~ 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again ! Do you also think that what i wrote in the article (apart from the link thing we're debating) had to be removed, as Jayjg ? I'm a bit puzzled on this one. I told him i was waiting for his answer on the Talk:Allegations of French apartheid before doing anything else, i'd like to have yours too, please ! Thanks a lot ! NicDumZ ~ 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Inmigration and History
I doubt Tony would be mad if we messed up the inmigration template a bit, after all it was created by Joelito, I see we are having an agreement here, we must merge and rename to Black History in Puerto Rico, the way I see it is that following that we could create a potential FAC. -凶 23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Te entiendo, problemas pasan en las mejores familias, todo parece haber sido un mal entendido. It seems both of you agree with choice 1, so I say we have a consensus. -凶 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Tremendo, aunque you hubiera preferido una solución un poco mas saludable, tú sabes sin tabacco :p -凶 00:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- It seems the project has become more focused these days, I personally have been involved in raising some B-class articles to GA, perhaps you might be interested in helping me with a current project in Miguel Cotto, the page was nominated by some random user and failed by an admin, I have attended the mayority of the points in the review so far but I kind of got side-tracked by Carly Colón, wich had to be entirely re-written as a result of several fanboys thinking "Carlito" is a real person, besides that Héctor Lavoe is also under Peer Review wich has taken some time to draw attention. -凶 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cerejota, I regusted a friend to close the deletion nomination and it has been done. Since we have agreed as tp what should be done (which we will) I believe that the "merge" tags on the both articles should be dropped in order to avoid further confussion from parties not involved. After you do your thing I will rename and make sure that the proper steps are taken in regard to any redirects involved. Tony the Marine 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Puerto Rico July 2007 Newsletter
 Year I - Issue 2 - July 2007 | |
|
"Sería borincano aunque naciera en la luna..." - Roy Brown | |
Hello, Cerejota/Archives/2007. This is the second issue of WikiProject Puerto Rico's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members to keep up with the latest news relating to the project. Please help with the newsletter by suggesting content to be included on the newsletter by leaving a message on my talk page. Enjoy! |
 |
| |
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Puerto Rico. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, please contact Boricuaeddie. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Animum Delivery Bot 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC) .