User talk:Orgullomoore/Archives/2023/July

NPOV noticeboard

Hey Orgullomoore,

I want to apologize for any feelings of conflict earlier, but if it makes you feel better, I opened up a NPOV noticeboard discussion to help us out. No one wants to fight or cause legal issues, so thanks for showing me the response to some of those reports as well. Hopefully we can make some better edits together when this whole situation clears up (if it does haha).----ZiaLater (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Thank you for taking the time to apologize. I took a little time out to ensure my response is rational and not rash. I realize you are not trying to defame anyone and that Guaido is a public figure. The reason I reacted so forcefully to your Guaido-signature-related edits is, as you say, the allegation is at the center of Maduro's propaganda circus blossoming from this "failed terrorist incursion." I don't know anything about your background, but that's what it looks like from here. It seems like we may be approaching this event from opposite perspectives, which I think is a great thing. Maybe you're inside Venezuela. Maybe you're not. To me its amazing you would not be aware of Guaido's denials because of, as you say, the centrality of the allegations to the entire debacle. My concern was that, the way you had it, the lead as well as the body of the paragraph, asserted without qualifiers that Guaido signed. That's just one side of the story, and as we discussed on the Talk page, it has criminal implications. Maybe you support Maduro, or oppose Guaido, or whatever. It really doesn't matter. I am just trying to make sure we clearly distinguish what is fact, analysis, speculation, conjecture, verifiably falsified, and so forth. You'll recall I had the same concern about the Rincon article, which was anti-Maduro. My main interest in this whole event has to do with the two abducted Americans. The rest of the Venezuelan presidential crisis articles are "not my circus, not my monkey," as they say. The mercenaries should not have been there. Bad, stupid idiots; icky. But I sure do hope they find their way to a safe jurisdiction soon. That's neither here nor there, though. With future editorial differences, let's be quick to discuss and compromise and slow to revert, even if a "gentle revert"? I'd appreciate it.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. This notification is specifically regarding this edit.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, do not add in original research. Wait until you have sources and properly cite the material within the body. Your recent actions can be seen as violating WP:OR.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Clarification – Just a note for whomever might come across the above two messages and think I'm an original researcher or vandal: it is undisputed that Maduro lured a group of dissidents and two Americans into carrying out an "operation" which would not have gone forward but for the participation of his regime. ZiaLater does not believe, however, that this justifies describing the event as a false flag operation in the lead. I believe it clearly meets the definition and is a neutral description of what's reported in reliable sources, and edited the lead to reflect these undisputed facts (14 May 2020 01:19). Another user reverted my lead change immediately (01:37) and I did not attempt to reintroduce the change until a consensus is built, contemporaneously initiating a new section on the Talk (01:21) page for that purpose. Still, ZiaLater added the above-shown two messages some ten hours after the Talk section was created and the disputed changes were introduced. Unlike the user who made the timely revert (01:42), ZiaLater did not, before adding the above two accusatory notice messages or as of the time of writing this one, participate in the mentioned Talk page section. In the last week or so, Zia and I have had several other editorial disputes, apparently sparked by our different perspectives on the actions of Maduro's government. Nevertheless, we have so far been able to resolve those differences with little-to-no third-party intervention.-Orgullomoore (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM

Hey! Just wanted you to take a look at WP:QUOTEFARM so you would understand my recent edit.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing discussions

Hey Orgullomoore, thanks for collapsing discussions for better navigation. Just be careful when the bot start archiving to uncollapse the discussions in the archive.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Hello. Yes, I thought of that. Hopefully I remember.--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Looks like you beat me to it. Thanks.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phonetic algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aizpuru, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)