User talk:Luisosio

Luisosio

A tag has been placed on Luisosio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please note that while this information may be appropriate for your userpage, it may not be proper for article space. --Moonriddengirl 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Guadalupe

I've just erased a lot of what you wrote, but I tried to retain the content (the mention of scientific tests to the Codex, the scarcity of paper in colonial Mexico, and the letter Mario Cuevas printed in his history).

The reason I edited your version is because Wikipedia isn't supposed to contain exclamation points or phrases like "you can bet your life it's true!" It's not supposed to read like a persuasive article.

Try reading these tutorials: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Content

It's also not appropriate to put links to your own blogs in Wikipedia articles, or to sign your work.

Good luck with your future edits, Katsam 07:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Katsam is that you erased everything, and what you added in no way retained useful info! I agree with eliminating certain phrases, but fundamental information which is well grounded by the main authorities in the field like Cuevas and de la Torre is something you should have respected!

Please realize I'm an expert in this particular field which you are not! That as a Mexican I have access to sources beyond your reach including full mastery of the basic language which happens to be Spanish and my own!

I'm repositioning my text with some of your suggested corrections. Please, before using your scissors to cut away large amounts of text, think, and discern wheather you may be destroying material worthy of an ecyclopaedia. You may contact me at luisgosio@msn.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luisosio (talk • contribs).

As I said, I retained some information (the mention of scientific tests to the Codex, the scarcity of paper in colonial Mexico, and the letter Mario Cuevas printed in his history).

That said, there is now a lot of stuff in the article which has that "persuasive" or "POV" tone, or is just not written in Wikipedia style. Take the following piece for example:

History evaluates the reality of the apparitions by the sudden, extraordinary success of the evangelizing of the Indians in the decade of 1531-1541, which constitutes the most successful evangelization ever.

"History evaluates the reality" is a phrasing which many Wikipedians might frown upon, because it ascribes a belief...to nobody! On Wikipedia, this is called "weasel words." Any time a person writes "Some believe..." or "It is said that..", it should be replaced by "Mario Cuevas, in his history X, said that..."

The best way to start off that paragraph would be to say "Person X said that," with Person X being a verifiable authority, and then to put an in-text citation immediately after it so interested readers can learn more. Do you know the code to put a citation in the text?

Further down, there are several non-encyclopedic, persuasive-type passages such as

"However, Brading's quip rather than leading to unbelief might be the confirmation of authenticity needed, as it brings to light the difference between St. Luke and St. Paul on one hand; and Valeriano and Sahagún on the other on a simple question: what reason could the first party of Luke and Paul have had to: first, draw the vision; and then, sign the drawing? None of course, absolutely none!"

I appreciate that you are an expert in Guadalupan studies. But Wikipedia is not the place for persuasive essays, no matter how expert their writers. It is also not a place where one person's writing is maintained forever: Wiki is a collaborative effort. Please try and edit some of the more persuasive stuff out of the Guadalupe article yourself: I'll come back in a day or two and if there's still a lot of it I'm going to make cuts again. Katsam 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. I saw that you called my previous comments "vandalization." I don't mean to harass you by coming over here to talk with you: generally talking is what people do at a talk page. If you'd like, we can talk on the Our Lady of Guadalupe talk page instead.[reply]

Katsam, you'll notice I have gladly followed you in some of your suggestions. However, it's obvious you expect me to be the only one to follow them! Too much in the page is biased. To give you one example, of many, Brading's sarcastic quip is openly derogatory OF A PIECE OF EVIDENCE! You don't, you have never objected to, you never applied your scissors to Brading's quip! See what I mean? Do you know the importance of evidence, FACTS, for an encyclopaedia?

Secondly, Wiki is a still rather new idea, so please don't harm it with boredom. Using Brading's quip with a good answer gives the article life, you know, liveliness! Neutrality is maintained... Yes, an open discussion would help a lot!

And thanks for your patience and the good suggestions.Luisosio 15:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, Brading's quip is exactly the type of thing that belongs in the encyclopedia. See, it's OK in Wikipedia to mention the viewpoints of experts. So it's fine to say "Brading thought X about evidence Y." Or "Mario Cuevas thought Z about evidence X." That's different from the ARTICLE itself taking a position. I bet you see the difference. Katsam 09:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right Katsam, we now have two problems to contend with: one is POV and the other is referral to an authority. You can be very much of a partisan just by the way you choose what to quote and what to leave out. I’m sure you’ll agree with that, and we could have an endless discussion about it.

But the main problem here is that you can ascribe my own words to me. My being an authority on the matter is not doubtful, what’s more, this sole answer attests fully to the fact.

On the contrary, Brading’s quip is so far removed from adequate knowledge of the subject matter, that it becomes doubtful whether he is a competent authority! He seems not to have been aware of the most basic fact pertaining to no less of a historical character than Valeriano!

Now I ask you: what is more fitting for a serious encyclopedia, Brading’s “un-expert quip” or my answer to it?Luisosio 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly welcome experts to contribute to Wikipedia. However, there is an official policy against original research. Please read this article: Wikipedia:No original research#Citing_oneself. Cleduc 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are somewhat confused, and demanding a source for almost every paragraph, quite against the rules. Evidence which cannot be uploaded, when important, is basic to an Enciclopedia...SO PUT IT BACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisosio (talk • contribs)

I think I understand what you're talking about, however:

There is no need to shout.
Please note that I do not take orders from you.

You can reference an image, just cite where it can be found. You cannot, however, talk about wikipedia's policies within the text of the encyclopedia (see WP:SELF). I hope this is helpful. Cleduc 05:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about "the rules". I invite you to review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research: those are "the rules". Unverifiable information and original research are subject to removal. I am tagging it as needing a citation (for now). You are welcome to provide verifiable sources for these statements; if you cannot, they will be removed. Cleduc 05:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huei tlamahuiçoltica‎

In a recent edit summary, you referred to a fellow editor as a "meddler" and then reverted the edits. This is troublesome in several ways:

You do not own this article. All articles are open for editing by others.
Please remain civil in your dealings with other editors. Do not engage in name calling.
Repeated wholesale reversions between two editors is called an edit war. Such behaviour is counterproductive.

There are issues with original research in this article, and I will be working with you and other editors to resolve these issues. I encourage you to discuss these issues as they arise on the talk page, and explain your positions. Thanks for your kind attention. Cleduc 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not only confused and confusing, but self contradictory! Besides introducing your comments in the wrong page (Our Lady Of Guadalupe instead of in the Huey...)You stated the following: "You can reference an image, just cite where it can be found. You cannot, however, talk about wikipedia's policies within the text of the encyclopedia (see WP:SELF). I hope this is helpful." But it's not, as it's precisely my citation as to where to find it: 1) that you erased. 2) refused to put back. So what are you up to? --Then, instead of putting back what you should according to the rules and to your own admission of the fact, you complain that I holler!
Interesting, isn't it?

You introduced 28 consecutive entries, non stop, sequentially. On my work. I repeat: on MY work, freely contributed, instead of suggesting civilly, politely like others have done the changes to make! Do you expect me to work revising 28 unrequested, unauthorized editions the best of which was merely to bullet a four entry listing?

Are you certain commonsense entries like "2+2=4" require referencing? Please check the rules AND your own work!

As it's ridiculous to request my analysing 28 entries you've made, please be civil, take everything back and reduce it to one single entry for comparison. You are most confused, confusing and discouraging to contributors that certainly are busier than you.Luisosio 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If verifiable sources are not provided for the statements made in the article, they will be removed. Thanks, Cleduc 16:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: DON'T VANDALIZE!!!Luisosio 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't seem to follow, here is the rule:

"How to cite sources Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements. Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations"

Got it?Luisosio 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm still waiting for you to reposition the where to be found of the image!Luisosio 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I have engaged in vandalism by removing a promotional link for your blog, go ahead and make a complaint. Cleduc 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again! Will you ever think? It's NOT what you call my blog! The relevant picture is from an Enciclopedia that's printed in a series of books! It's not on the Internet. Therefore, as you should be aware of the responsabilities of USING material which CONTRADICTS YOUR STATMENT OF "YOUR BLOG" as it contains that single picture WHICH IS NOT MINE and footnotes, it is THE ONLY WAY to reference it UNDER MY PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Did you ever suggest an alternative, OR ARE YOU JUST A BARRIER TO PERTINENT INFORMATION?

By the way capitol letters are not shouting, they are the quickest way to highlight the relevant words that you don't miss them. Do you know of a quicker way after all the time to make me lose?Luisosio 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Luisosio)

Hello, Luisosio. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio, where you may want to participate.

-- Cleduc 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgen de Guadalupe and related articles

Please, please, please stop.--Rockero 04:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Our Lady of Guadalupe, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Our Lady of Guadalupe. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. It appears that you are trying to promote a blog. Please see WP:SPS and WP:EL - only in exceptional cases can blogs be used as references or external links, and this doesn't qualify. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]