User talk:Jmundo/Archives/2008/December

FireGPG AfD

A copy of my message to you on that page:

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or the shorter version, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related, I reverted your post of the list of other FireFox extensions. I'll take a look at them, but listing them on teh AfD page just isn't the appropriate place. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize for my remark about WP:BIAS. While I still do not agree with the way you invoked that policy, the AfD was not an appropriate place for me to bring that up. I will try to refrain from personal remarks in the future; dealing with Kikbguy and another [unrelated] dispute over the past day or so has been very tiring and I seem to have lost sight of myself for a moment. Your remark "I am sure you have read: Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument" came off as to me as being a personal attack (a comment on my own editing rather than on the AfD), but my later remark was no better, and I should not have made it.

If you would like to discuss my edits or anything else in a way that is not directly consequential to the AfD, you may leave me a message at my talk page or send me an e-mail and I will be happy to respond. Otherwise, for comments that are immediately relevant to the article or the AfD discussion, you are welcome to continue posting there. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Haydee-torres.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Haydee-torres.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Rolando Gomez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closures

I'm going through AFD at the moment and I just came across two NAC's you did. (Perpetuelle and Join the Impact). If you do another one, remember to enclose the entire debate in the tags; including the section header. I will fix these ones for you. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Material article

Thank you so much for "saving" the Seth Material article. About ten days ago a group of editors -- including administrators, which I found shocking -- descended on the article with threats to delete it. They clearly had no knowledge of the subject, but they just as clearly didn't like it. They redirected the article several times, and they pulled two-thirds of it out and tried to force other editors to work in a sandbox (without their agreement). Their behavior was extremely biased, and it was a terrible experience for the other editors.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there were no threats to delete the article - it was stated many times on the talk page. The nomination was in fact made by an editor who had been "defending" the page (as an IP) and was as pointy as they come - but the bias was in the other direction. Caleb is an WP:SPA with huge ownership issues with the page, and has been trolling good faith editors with comments like the above (and accusations of bias because we're Christian or atheist, that admins shouldn't edit, we shouldn't change his work, we are ignorant and only those who follow Seth's teachings should edit, that WP:RS isn't needed, and that notability didn't need to be established by sources, etc). I would have closed the AfD was it still open when I saw it, unless it had generated meaningful debate; which was unlikely considering the nominators statement. The article has been massively improved in the last 3 weeks, but still needs work. Thanks for this, Verbal chat 08:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved, but it was in good shape right from the start. There was quite a bit of talk about deleting the article. For an author who thinks he "owns" the article, I have "permitted" (and welcomed) a great many revisions. My central point to Verbal was that, although Wiki rules permit it, it shows a lack of integrity to believe that you can judge, edit and "improve" an article about which you know nothing. This article was most definitely under attack. Thanks for ending it by refuting the attempt to delete it.

Sorry that we are now arguing on your talk page!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FireGPG.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FireGPG.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jmundo, you can disregard that warning; I put the image into List of Firefox extensions, so it's not orphaned anymore and won't be deleted. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm not the one who merged the article, but it looks like whoever did the merge forgot to bring the image along with it. Anyway, I guess we got off to a bad start at first, but all that dispute is over now (finally!) and it looks like you've been making all sorts of edits. It's good to see you contributing so much! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

You have to subst prods, ie, {{subst:prod|REASON}}, not {{dated prod|REASON}} otherwise it doesn't work properly. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity

One editor continues to remove the Media Matters award. Your contributions on the talk page could be helpful.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had this worked out. Unfortunately, I promised not to edit the article for 24 hours, so I can't be much help. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico

No hay de qué, Jmundo.

Pero si alguna vez crees que se puede mejorar, adelante. Yo no sé casi nada del tema, pero tengo la impresión de que la opinión que tu compartes es la mayoritaria entre los expertos y los dos gobiernos.

No, no me lo expliques, je je. Veo que este es un asunto complicado y tengo demasiado en mi plato ya.

Y al igual que tú, espero que Portorricensis acepte esa versión, o una parecida. El debe mostrar fuentes para apoyar su opinión, como hiciste tú.

Que disfrutes el fin de semana. Hasta luego. SamEV (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Cerejota here.

My edit was meant to stop the edit-warring for the moment. But the issue of undue weight crept into my mind as I typed it, in fact, and it is why I hinted that you might find a better solution later. (Goes w/o saying, right? Improvements are always possible.)

Other possible language that I submit for your consideration:

"Puerto Rico is a self-governing, unincorporated (incorporated, per some sources) territory of the United States.[3][4][5]"

"Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of the United States, unincorporated[3][4][5] or incorporated,[refs here] depending on source."

"Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of the United States, unincorporated, per most sources.[3][4][5]"

"Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of the United States, unincorporated, per most sources,[3][4][5]" incorporated per others.[refs here]

No sé si nada de eso te sirve, Jmundo. Hasta luego. SamEV (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boricua Barnstar

In appreciation for your contributions and for helping me in the management of the "List of Puerto Ricans" I award this "Boricua" barnstar. Gracias hermano.

This **Boricua** Tireless Contributor Barnstar is presented to User:Jmundo for his continous work on Puerto Rican related articles. Presented by Tony the Marine (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words and for the flag. I'll look into the usage of it. It is always a pleasure to work with someone who wants to bring out the "true" and unbiased history of our island. I will be looking to working with you in making sure that we educate our youth and the world as to all the positive things which Puerto Ricans have done. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Hey, your edits seem to be appearing all over my watchlist lately. So, I just dropped by to let you know that if Tony is unavailable, you can count on me when dealing with sysop matters. As a matter of fact, the multifacetical nature of your edits evoked memories of another Puerto Rican user, Marcos, who is a good friend of ours. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portorricensis is a loose cannon, he enjoys edit warring and randomly undoes changes done following consensus without giving any justification. We aren't here to cater any political ideology, but he doesn't seem to grasp that. Anyway, thanks and Merry Christmas for you as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guacimal

Your AFD argument is convincing, but I don't speak the language. Where in the article does it support your claims? (You might want to add it to the article anyway, which would invalidate several arguments) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Patchen

Hi there. I note you jumped in on the AfD for the above article. I don't disagree that the links you provided show that David Patchen exists, that is without question. Also, his work is admirable. However, I have been unable to find anything that would count as a reliable source. All of the links in the article are to art galleries and stores that are selling his work (hardly neutral sources) and the two additional ones provided appear no different. The problem is it is has been impossible to find (for me), anything that would establish David Patchen as a notable glass artist with verifiable third-party references. I'm more inclusion-ist than anything, especially since the subject of the article has obvious talent in his field, but I have as of yet found anything to support this article being currently verifiable for inclusion. Best regards. Chasingsol ^(talk) 12:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

Jmundo, since you like many of my articles (and I like the way you've writtten them in Spanish) I am sure that you are going to enjoy an article which I wrote about a young unwed Puerto Rican girl who had the courage of taking on the United States government. I call her the "Puerto Rican Rosa Parks". The girl which I am talking about was Isabel Gonzalez. Enjoy! Tony the Marine (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyana Williams

Hello, Jmundo/Archives/2008 ...

Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) _{03:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

admin

Jmundo, primero, saludos y felicidades!

I was wondering why you don't want to be an administrator? Your are a XfD patroller in good standing, and I think access to the admin tools would help you in this, so you can close deletions etc... you have been around for a while, so why not? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, sometimes someone has to be the bad cop... ;) That said, if you remove the userbox, I would nominate you for admin... don't know if others agree, but I sure do. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I didn't try ;) If you change your mind let me know... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wikipedia

Hola, mira esto y esto. --Jmundo (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. That's pretty sad that Criticism of Wikipedia is translated into almost every language except Spanish—apparently due to some censorship-embracing bibliotecarios. Good luck talking some sense into them...I tried and was crushed. --Eustress (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:AndreaParhamovich.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:AndreaParhamovich.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:AndreaParhamovich.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:AndreaParhamovich.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-prod of Caitlin Sanchez

Thanks for the de-prod of Caitlin Sanchez. Your edit summary captures my thoughts exactly. Thanks again and best wishes for the new year! Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Máximo García

Gracias por el apoyo que he recibido por tu parte al respecto de este artículo, he sido autor de la versión española del artículo y he recibido felicitaciones vía email al respecto y nadie pone en duda sus méritos (reconocidos a nivel nacional). En la wikipedia inglesa debería ser (al menos eso pienso) exactamente lo mismo, ya que se transmite la misma información, pero destinada al público que no sabe español(he traducido el artículo, omitiendo algún que otro párrafo menos relevante para que no fuera de la misma extensión, pero aún así el usuario Random Humanoid ha borrado gran parte de la misma y la ha dejado en un esbozo con un lenguaje simple, cuando yo a mi traducción le di varias vueltas para que adquiriera musicalidad y cohesión, y ello puedes verlo en la primera versión del artículo).

Enrique Máximo se licenció en Química, fue un reconocido investigador que rescató importantísimos conocimientos olvidados ya para la Región de Murcia (Juan Oliver, Tadeo Tornel, recuperó el pianoforte..), no se licenció en historia, pero los méritos de sus trabajos que en su mayoría tenían que ver con la historia hicieron que la universidad de murcia lo incluyera en su lista de profesores, lo cual hace que pueda ser llamado historiador con todas sus letras, cosa que ha borrado Random Humanoid, y, por último, creo que sus descubrimientos, sus exposiciones, proyectos (que salen en la versión española), y la reconstrucción de la obra de Juan Oliver hacen que pueda ser llamado musicólogo.

Disculpa que te hable en español, es mi lengua materna y no sabía muy bien cómo expresarte lo que te he dicho en inglés, y como he visto que varios usuarios te han escrito en español, he deducido que conocías el idioma. Tu puedes contestarme en inglés y lo entenderé sin problema alguno, como prefieras.

Mis disculpas de nuevo. Un saludo y gracias

--User:Klaiver ^talk 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por el ánimo. ¿Ves viable que el artículo se mantenga? En la española ha sido perfectamente admitido y he recibido felicitaciones, no entiendo por qué aquí no. ¿Le has echado un vistazo a mi traducción? es la primera página del artículo del historial, mi inglés no es excelente, pero no la creo pésima como para borrarla de un plumazo, tal y como hizo este hombre y sin justificación. Si eres tan amable dame tu opinión al respecto del futuro del artículo y de mi traducción. Un saludo amigo.

--User:Klaiver ^talk 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Tu predicción me alienta y me alegra. Gracias. Por cierto, ¿no crees que mi traducción del artículo es rescatable? ¿tan mal está?.

PD: ¿cuando y quien determina si el artículo se queda? cuando se le quita la etiqueta de borrado si es que se mantiene? (perdón por la ignorancia, pero soy nuevo, aunque creo que se nota) Saludos!

--User:Klaiver ^talk 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]