User talk:SandyGeorgia/Chavez

Talk subpage for Chávez

Please click here to leave me a new message. I usually respond on my own talk page. Please sign your entry with four tildes (~).

If your keyboard doesn't easily allow you to use accents, you can edit copy and paste from this list (please add to the list alphabetically any words you need accented):

• Chávez
• Súmate

Hugo Chavez redirect

My apologies for having taken so long to get back to you; I undertook to complete a few "small" projects here a few days ago, and, well, they turned out not to be so small. In any event, the redirect was no problem, and I thank you for changing it upon the move of the info to the presidency article. I'm no GFDL expert, and, indeed, my interpretations sometimes differ from those of others who are otherwise more GFDL-saavy, but I think we ought always to err on the side of preserving the contribution history until we're sure it's unnecessary (to be sure, redirects may someday become unwieldy [after all, List of honors earned by Hugo Chávez is an unlikely search], such that merges with preservation of contribution history and concomitant deletion might be required, but we're not yet there). Thanks, finally, for your kind words... :) Joe 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory voting in Venezuela

Hola Sandy!, since a few days ago you were part of the conversation in this section of the Talk:Hugo Chávez, I was wondering if you can add your view on the issue of adding the Abstention stats in the main article, taking into account what I have added recently to the discussion, namely, the "Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política". Thank you! (Caracas1830 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

Chavez

Hi Sandy, I think you're doing a really good job on the Hugo Chavez page. Although I drop in to comment infrequently, it's on my watchlist and I follow the changes as much as I can. Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Chavez

As you can see from this aritcle, I'm not one of the Chavistas or Fidelistas on Wikipedia. [1] I will not support the denial of the obvious, regardless of whether I have to stand up to either the Fidelistas or the fanatical opponents of the Chavez regime. The events of April 2002 were undeniably a coup. Do a search on LexisNexis and look up New York Times, AP, Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, etc. on the events; none make a practice out of avoiding reference to the coup as a "coup." Name a single respectable news media outlet that does not. (I cannot think of one.) If you're interested in responding, respond on the article talk page, not my talk page. Also, I'm not interested in hearing the old spiel about how the events weren't a coup because Chavez "resigned." 172 | Talk 03:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil message, 172. Since you haven't responded to several requests to read and use the article talk page [2] [3], it doesn't make sense to demand that I do, so I guess that's the end of that conversation. Saludos, Sandy 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I responed on your page, following your question posed on my page. (I don't archive my talk page often, since it helps me keep track of things, as my short-term memory wasn't what it used to be when I was younger. So I have a pet-peave about getting messages about content disputes on my talk page. In short, my reply was more terse than it should have been. Again, sorry about that.) 172 | Talk 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize your response as terse at all. The links above show that you ignored my first request that you discuss the edit on the article talk page, before I took my second request to your talk page. IMO, there are some civility and bite the newcomers issues here, without even mentioning the respect issues. Sandy 18:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sandy

I guess wikipedia is not a democracy, but I can't say I disagree with 172, the article had became a horrible mess and I really did like the original despite having POV misgivings too if you can believe it or not, however I do kind of ask that you reflect on your own POV, I am not a chavista as a matter of fact I have never voted for the man or his platform. I do not view him as a hero, but he is also not any worse than most other democratic leaders when the facts are in you may percieve him otherwise and it is your right, I just ask that you not pay attention to what he says instead of what he does. As for the rest it truly has been one of the more civil discussions I have had with an oposition rank and file.Flanker 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you and I agree on some points, and I was concened about the POV in both directions. But for certain editors, with no discussion of the possibility on the talk page or the FARC, to completely revert weeks of hard work, without even so much as a comment, just makes a sham of all that Wiki stands for. In particular, to ask that edits be discussed on the talk page, after 172 specifically refused to join in our civil discussion on the talk page, [4] [5], leaves a real sour taste. And no one has yet explained how we're supposed to work on an article that takes so long to check diffs, that it's difficult to follow and edit. (Sure, nothing wrong with a long article, as long as you can edit it.) Had he discussed the possibility of a complete revert, sheesh, I could have made much better use of my (very limited, as I've mentioned repeatedly) time in the last few weeks. This is such an enormous "bite the newcomers" issue, and really explains a lot about why so many Wiki articles are in trouble and so many editors give up and leave. It also helps one to understand why one overriding policy would make all the others unnecessary: the disrespectful, rude and uncivil editors [6] chase people off of Wiki. What a waste of time, to work tirelessly for so many weeks, and then encounter this kind of rudeness and arrogance. Be well, I really do respect your efforts and your civility, and more people should behave more like venezolanos. (By the way, I can't figure out what you want on Súmate, so I'll get to it after I catch up with everything I've neglected on the home front for the last few weeks. Unless I decide Wiki isn't worth it.) Sandy 18:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I was not the one who restored the main page version. I merely saw that it was restored, agreed with WGee, the user who restored the page, per Wikipedia:Be bold, and started copyediting the old version. I think you'll find the changes I've been making to the main page version to be positive. 172 | Talk 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 172, I saw that. I may be new, idealistic, and naive, but I'm not entirely stupid. Sandy 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. I don't understand what you mean. 172 | Talk 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Meaning I do know how to read. I think I've made the bone I have to pick with you pretty clear above, but I am willing to accord your work on the article respect that wasn't accorded many other editors. Sandy 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I regret that I've said anything that has caused you personal offense. What is it that you particularly object to? I assume it's WGee's restoration of the main page version, right? At the moment I'm trying to fix the main page version, with attention to the concerns you've been bringing to light in recent weeks. [7] So, please, don't think your concerns are going ignored by anyone. If, upon completion, my work is unsatifactory, we may always restore the version of the page made on your last edit, and roll back WGee's revision. At the moment, though, I think it's a better idea to use WGee's revision as the basis for improving the article. 172 | Talk 19:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it that you particularly object to? Two words, concepts which go hand in hand: respect and arrogance. I certainly don't object to the revert of an atrocious article, which was a mess. My objection is that "we" (the collective we, a whole lot of editors) were working our tails off, respecting Wiki pillars and policies, taking everything to the talk page, commenting on the FARC, working towards consensus, being civil; while, on the other hand you (in particular) were one of few who refused to take an edit to the article talk page (and then rebuked me - above - for taking a second request to your talk page) [8], that you (in particular) never helped out or participated in the article talk page, as many of us were working our tails off, all the while "you" (the collective "you", not you in particular, and I don't even know who all comprises the collective "you", but it does include you, and it's not a fine example of Wiki collaboration and consensus) watched our futile efforts to fix the issues, should have seen that we were working hard together, never commented that we may be heading the wrong direction, and then without so much as a nod of your head, let us know what role we play in this grand sham. IF we were heading in completely the wrong direction, someone might have said something, as a whole lot of us were working our arses off. In addition, it's possible (I'm not really sure, since I haven't asked) that I was one of few editors of the article who is both fluent in English and familiar with Venezuela, so I in particular was doing a lot to try to figure out what editors wanted, what they were trying to say, and in correcting grammar, punctuation, and spelling (not something I am criticizing, just a fact of life, and I sure can't write as well in Spanish as many others did in English), so the work sure wasn't easy, but it was done with good faith and respect for the pillars. It just seemed that, while we were all respecting the way Wiki was supposed to work, our work was accorded no respect at all, because the collective "you" decided to revert the entire article without so much as the dignity of a talk page comment or participation in advance. So, I don't know how it works in the Cuban culture (as you indicated you've worked a lot on the Cuba articles), but respect is a big issue in the old Venezuelan culture (notwithstanding the deterioration of same introduced by Chavez and his hate-mongering), so if you're going to work with Venezuelans on the article, how about some respect ? IMO, your rebuke (above) of me, for raising a second request on your talk page was rude, uncivil, and insensitive. Check your arrogance. If the unacceptable tone of your first talk page message (above) to me isn't clear, doublecheck your arrogance. I hope I've been clear this time, and I don't mean to be offend, but it sometimes seems one has to speak very directly to be understood in written media. Sandy 20:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your problem has more to do with the way Wikipedia works; and, believe me, I understand your frustration. The same thing happened to me many times over the years; I'd be working on a page with a stable group of editors, and then, all of a sudden, a new editor would stop by and totally change the group dynamic. It's really frustrating; but, again, that's how Wikipedia works. I believe the site founder, Jimbo Wales, has said multiple times that he has based his vision on how Wikipedia should work on the principle of "creative destruction." Although Wikipedia is a tough environment in which to work, I'm sure I can win your confidence. Given the problems I've had with Cuba-related articles, I bet I see eye-to-eye with you on Latin America to a greater extent than I do with many of the young English-speaking users on this site, who idolize thugs like Castro, Guevara, and Chavez. Besides, in the end, if we decide that WGee's restoration of the main page version was not helpful in improving the article, it's always possible to restore your most recent version of the article here within seconds. 172 | Talk 20:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand how Wiki works, and this is not about an atrocious article which needed to be reverted. There were very few editors who refused to use the talk page, so it seems I'm not the only one who understands Wiki policies. You've changed the subject without addressing or responding to any of the issues I raised, so if you don't want to acknowledge my response to your question, kindly refrain from asking me to spell out my objections. My issue now is not with dictator thugs out there: it's with rude people in here, who disregard the pillars of Wiki [9], and bite the newcomers. [10] If you're so sure you can win my confidence, try a straightforward apology for the lack of civility and respect. Sandy 20:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am the newcomer on the Chavez article. It's not that I was refusing to use the talk page, I just wasn't paying attention to the article until the past couple of days, and, coincidentally, that time coincided with WGee's decision to restore the main page version. 172 | Talk 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Still no apology or acknowledgement: this will be my last response on this topic, as I feel enough of my time has been wasted in the last month. Sandy 20:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not consulting with you before archiving the talk page. I should've waited. However, I was not out of line to object to the word choice matter regarding the April 2002 coup yesterday, nor in editing the main page version restored by WGee today. 172 | Talk 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I see where you inserted this link FYI that case was inconclusive, and spearheaded by the two trolls who were later severely sanctioned by the arbcom. [11] [12] Referring to the complaints against me there puts you in bad company. I am not under arbcom sanctions; interestingly enough, the arbcom has ruled, "172 is a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest." 172 | Talk 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Harassment" removed by User:172 from his talk page.

Posts from Zleitzen and SandyGeorgia, removed by User172 from his talk page as "harassment".
The Chavez article had deteriorated since it's featured article status before Christmas as you rightly point out, 172, reaching it's worst way before SandyGeorgia began editing. This editor was cutting down extraneous material, politely discussing issues, looking for consensus etc, improving the article which is why I praised the work alongside that of SuperFlanker only days before you entered the fray. Your initial revert about the 2002 coup had been discussed at length on the talk page and SandyGeorgia had made some excellent points in a discussion with others including myself. We discussed sources, bias, the meaning of words in relation to the article etc in a civil and productive manner. Personally I believe it was a coup - but I was prepared to provide legitimate sources that said otherwise, and did.

Yet everywhere I turn I find you unnecessarily treading on people's toes, demanding blocks on editors without due cause, talking about "Chavistas" and "Fidelistas", imposing your singular views on ambiguous subjects and so on. I notice you describe "the problems you've had with Cuba-related articles" and bemoan "the young English-speaking users on this site". Maybe it is worth some self-reflection on your part, that these problems are not the fault of other users. Besides, I don't know about other Cuba editors, but I haven't had found a dark hair on my head for a long time. At least you had the decency to eventually apologise to Sandy for supporting the reversion of a months worth of hard work improving the article. Maybe this signals a new approach on your part. Adios 172.--Zleitzen 01:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Eloquent summary, Zleitzen, and I appreciated reading it (just as I appreciated your support of SF and myself, noting that your support was spread equally). Except one question: At least you had the decency to eventually apologise to Sandy for supporting the reversion of a months worth of hard work improving the article. He did? I missed that: I saw some words that evaded the issue, and apologies for issues that weren't my issues, which seemed like weasling or that he didn't want to acknowledge what he had done (refused to discuss edits on the talk page, then rebuked me for posting to his talk page). Experienced on the internet, though, I'm always open to the possibility that I interpreted the written word incorrectly. I don't mind the reversion of the awful work: I mind the way it was done, and 172 certainly never apologized to me for refusing to work on talk page consensus, and demanding that I not post on his talk page, which is the behavior I take most issue with (disrespect of Wiki policies). [13] The way 172 and his co-editor proceeded amounts to missing the forest for the trees. If you proceed without civility, and in a way that alienates other editors who are trying to do their best, you end up hurting the project overall, by chasing off others. Just before their actions, I commented on and praised the collaboration (see the FARC), as it had been so rewarding to work civilly with people of differing points of view. (And, it was a pleasure to understand how others see the world, even if I disagree.) So, now he's got himself a reverted article, which although better than the mess that existed before, still has all the problems that were raised on FARC (and more, since it's now outdated). Who is going to help fix them in an environment of no consensus, lack of civility, and disrespect for the work of others? Sandy 02:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow up on Zleitzen's page Sandy 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply Chavez

I did apologize for archving the talk page without consulting you. (I do not regret my decision to support WGee's restoration of the December 10 version, which dramatically improved the article following my copyedits.) Now, that being said, do you want the talk page restored? Rather than lashing out against me, you could simply ask me to restore the old talk page. I'd be happy to do it... There's no reason for you to walk around with a chip on your shoulders. This is a wiki; anything can be undone or redone anytime within seconds. By the way, I think you're being quite unfair to me in making so many angry accusations, though I'm willing to forgive and forget this. My communication could've been better, but I meant no disrespect to you; and my only goal was to improve the article. 172 | Talk 05:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

172, This is now the third or fourth time you have distorted the points I've raised about WP:Consensus, and changed the subject to something that has nothing to do with the behavior I objected to, creating the impression on my talk page of conflict over issues which aren't mine. Are you intentionally being obtuse? Repeating: the issue is, your violation of WP:Consensus by refusing to take edits to the Hugo Chávez article talk page, then objecting to my polite, second request on your talk page to please discuss edits on the article talk page. The only significant contributors who refused to/failed to discuss edits on the article talk page or build consensus were you and User:WGee. You haven't apologized for that or even acknowledged it.

I have linked to the talk page archive where needed: if I wanted it restored, I'd do it myself. Please stop involving me in what appears to be an attempt to create the appearance of conflict. In the interest of Wiki, you might focus your efforts on the significant amount of work needed to Hugo Chávez since you and your co-editor reverted/supported reversion. I haven't seen any progress towards correcting the numerous deficiencies raised on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez (many of which are still present) or re-doing the salvageable parts of the work which were reverted. There are now even more problems, as the article contains outdated, inaccurate information.

Please don't continue to waste time on obtuse apologies for issues which aren't mine. Good luck with all the work before you: I'm sure a better article will emerge. Sandy 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, the issue which you completely failed to understand (with respect to my "tendentious" edits as you called them on User:WGee's talk page), is that I was concerned about building consensus around the use of the word "coup" because OTHER editors began to change the title long after Zleitzen and I discussed the word. [14] I didn't edit the section heading again until others began to change it: this is why you should study a page history, discuss items on talk page before jumping in with drastic and intransigent actions, and allow consensus to develop. Since you short-circuited consensus-building (which I had started on the talk page), problems with the article may continue. Sandy 13:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, with respect to your comments on Zleitzen's talk page, it again appears that you are being obtuse about what my very clear objection to your behavior is (refusing to discuss edits on the talk page). I have not objected to the revert, just as I have not objected over the talk page archive (even though it was inappropriate), rather your refusal to build consensus or discuss edits on the article talk page. This occurred before the revert, and is similar to what occurred with the revert (failure to build consensus). I concur with User:Zleitzen's comments about the nature of the problem, and encourage you again to focus on fixing the article, rather than concocting conflict with me in areas where it doesn't exist. BTW, it's interesting how you keep all criticism, even friendly and courteous, off of your own talk page by 1) removing it, 2) demanding that I not respond on your talk page even after I requested you come to the article talk page, and 3) asking Zleitzen, "Finally, please don't respond to this post on my talk page." This makes it appear that you just want to create conflict on other user's talk pages, and keep yours pristine. It also appears to be a blatant double standard, as my objection to your behavior is exactly what you raise with Zleitzen: that you refused to discuss edits on the article talk page, degenerating a fairly simple issue into a series of distortions. If you continue to be obtuse, shall I return the favor, and demand that you stop posting to my talk page? Sandy 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, while I apologise for not explaining my bold revision beforehand, I do not regret my actions, and I must stress that niether I nor 172 are attempting to "commandeer" the article, as you suggested in other comments. Nor am I ignoring Wikipedia's consensus-building policy, for, in fact, we are in the process of building a consensus right now. Perhaps you would have liked me to build a consensus in advance, but I ardently believed at the time (and so did you, I reckon) that a bold edit was in order. My experience, albiet brief, suggests that the most progress is made when editors are bold.

Also, don't take offense in the fact that I effectively deleted a multitude of your and others' work. I meant no disrespect to you; I was merely concerned with improving the article. As Wikipedia states, "...others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be." [15]

The article, as it stood, was simply not worth salvaging, despite your attempts to improve it. And don't be too worried about the article being outdated; with the diffs available, it should be easy to update.

--WGee 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wgee, thanks for the response: I do appreciate that you have taken the time, made the sincere effort, and apologized for what is my actual complaint (not bringing edits to the talk page beforehand). Acknowledgement goes a long way towards maintaining good faith, and the failure to do so speaks volumes about one's character, and possibly intent.

We agree that the article was probably beyond salvaging, but there was a good faith effort underway, which should have been respected via some sort of talk page discussion.

Regarding the "commandeer" comments, if you'll reread them (and I don't even recall where they were, but distinctly remember the conversation), the other editor first used that word, I believed he was joking as they were used in quotes and with a smilie emoticon, and I responded in kind in a joking manner, also using the word in quotes. I realize that the *act* of reverting the article is according to bold policy, is commonplace, and I do not view it as "commandeering" per se. I will later find that conversation and make sure emoticons are used, to reflect that I was trying to lighten the conversation.

It's not worth crying over spilt milk. But, as I told 172 earlier, respect is an issue if you want involvement of Venezuelan editors. I do believe Venezuelans should be encouraged to be involved, and that consensus should have been built beforehand, out of respect. A concern I have is that, so much work was undone, and I'm not (yet) clear that either you or 172 actually plan to be involved in rebuilding that work, correcting the references; in short, doing the *real* hard work that now lies ahead, considering the possibility that other editors may leave. What 172 has replaced so far is inadequate, and the article now has other problems. The even greater concern is (in my opinion) that the original article had problems because there was not enough Venezuelan involvement -- people who know what is not said in the article.

You mention you are trying to build consensus now: I haven't seen that. There have only been two editors involved since the revert (Flanker and 172), and I've seen no talk page entries that will help restore good faith.

Yes, more progress can be made with a bold move, but Wiki is shot in the foot if you alienate other editors in the process. I hope you and 172 can see your way to address these concerns on the talk page, and encourage others to stay involved. (Although 172 seems like a fairly stubborn chap :-)) I am already aware of one editor who will not be returning to work on the Hugo Chávez article, and I thought his contributions and commentary were most helpful. Thanks again for writing: I was beginning to wonder if you were invisible :-)) Regards, Sandy 00:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker has certainly made progress in updating references and 172 is actively addressing concerns with prose. Unfortunately, my exams are approaching and I will not have much time to do any updating; however, I have been involved in "wikifying" parts of the article (to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style). That is about as much as I can do for now, I'm afraid.

Also, when I said that we are currently building a consensus, I meant that we are procuring and attempting to heed people's opinions in order to satisfy as many editors as possible. I understand that you perceive a lack of progress, but keep it mind that if we want to avoid the problems that plagued previous versions, we have to take care in updating the article, so results are not expected instantly. And although 172 and Flanker are doing most of the editing right now, others are not discouraged from joining in.

Further, while I encourage Venezuelan involvement in the article, it is important to keep in mind the potential for bias: that is, any Venezuelan with regular access to an Internet-enabled computer will most likely be a member of the middle or upper class, groups generally opposed to Chavez. That is why I am weary of actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement in the article.

--WGee 01:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiVenezuelan comments

WGee, I have been unable to find the "commandeer" conversation referenced above, and can't recall where it was. If it's a concern, and if you can remember where you saw it, I'll be glad to add a note that it was in jest. Found the conversation.

I will not have much time to do any updating I am concerned that you would revert six months worth of work on an article, that you don't have time to follow, considering the amount of repair needed as a result of the revert. It's not clear at all to me why you made, as your first edit to the series of Venezuelan articles, a major revert back to a six-month old version. It would seem that, if you felt that such a drastic revert was necessary, you would also be committed to working on and fixing the issues caused by the revert. I recognize that your time is limited, but it's curious that the time you did spend on editing Wiki articles since reverting Hugo Chávez was, for June 11; 00:27 - 03:14 on History of Russia, Sweden Democrats, and Communism, 17:43 - 18:29 on Front National (France), and 23:52 - 00:12 June 12 on Front National (France) and Chip Berlet. I do hope you plan to allocate some of your time to helping in the rebuild of Hugo Chávez, since the article is now outdated.

I have not seen the progress you mention in the article: references are missing and biased, links are dead, prose has problems, POV is still present, and the article is massively long, disregarding the daughter articles containing much of the same information in Summary Style. Further, it's going to get longer when the corrections needed because of the revert are added, and when the content from criticism is brought back to the main article because it was tagged in spite of succeeding in AfD. Your comments in the next response here seem to indicate that you think it's an acceptable version because it had featured status six months ago: during the six months that elapsed, the information became outdated. I'm concerned that it seems irresponsible to make a revert to such an old version, while not planning to make the changes necessary to bring the article up-to-date.

any Venezuelan with regular access to an Internet-enabled computer will most likely be a member of the middle or upper class, groups generally opposed to Chavez. That is why I am weary of actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement in the article.

WGee, I find this comment stunning. I'm shocked to see it in print, or that a secondary school student would have formulated such an opinion in so little time on Wiki. The Wiki recognition of inherent bias doesn't give free reign to discourage anyone from editing -- it reminds us to be aware of it! Further, if there is any truth to this statement, the same generalizations can be made about any country, including the USA, so it seems to me to be extremely prejudicial against Venezuelans. Further, it implies that anyone who is poor is pro-Chávez, while anyone who is not is anti-Chávez, which is exactly the kind of uninformed bias that exists in the article. (I correspond regularly with people in Venezuela via the internet, who are decidedly poor -- even poor people can find a computer to borrow in an oil wealthy country. How often have you traveled to Venezuela? I know exceedingly wealthy people who are chavistas, and poverty-stricken people who despise the man for misleading them and making them even more poor.) Additionally, consider the possibility (I would say the reality) that wealthier Venezuelans simply are not likely to give a hoot about the propoganda being spread on the internet or to do anything about it, while pro-Chávez groups, learning well from Fidel, have been very effective in propogating myth throughout the internet. I hope you'll reconsider the effect this kind of misinformed bias has on the integrity of Wiki, not to mention the real people (Venezuelans like SuperFlanker) who work hard on the article, doing their best to exercise good faith and respect NPOV, regardless of social class or political persuasion.

The current bias in the article seems to be precisely because Venezuelans, who knew the full story, were discouraged from editing. If people in ivory towers and academia, who haven't lived it and don't have access to the facts on the ground or know where to find facts in the non-English press or that didn't make it past BBC et al headline bias (which is exactly what the Chavez article suffers from) are building Wiki, while discouraging the input from any one of any size, shape, color, or political persuasion, then Wiki is inherently biased, period.

Further, what about assuming good faith? Your statement implies that people against Chávez, or the middle and upper classes, are not capable of NPOV and will be a source of bias. I would say, encourage all people to edit, and let the process sort out the bias and POV. By discouraging certain groups, you come closer to guaranteeing that the result will be POV, since the reading audience doesn't get a chance to see both sides. (As they didn't when an entire talk page went poof into archives.)

... weary of actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement in the article ??? I thought you were a secondary school student with only a few months on Wiki, little time to edit, and no past edit history in the Venezuelan articles? When did you become weary of Venezuelans? And would you consider that some of the vandalism and malicous edits are precisely because Venezuelans, both pro- and anti-Chávez, feel disempowered and disenfranchised by Wiki (over things like disrespectful reverts), and vandalize the article rather than making productive contributions? I'd rather see them all get involved, which is why I was willing to work so hard to correct grammar, punctuation, spelling of people whose comments weren't easy to follow in broken English, and help them contribute even when I didn't agree with their POV. I don't want anyone to feel left out -- the whole, and true story should be told from all sides. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? Sandy 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, there's no need to take offense to my comment, for it was not anti-Venezuelan and I am not discouraging anyone. I simply made a general comment about a possible socio-economic bias that could exist in that country, just as you did when you said: "...consider the possibility (I would say the reality) that wealthier Venezuelans simply are not likely to give a hoot about the propoganda being spread on the internet or to do anything about it...." Of course my comment didn't apply to everyone, and I did not mean to imply that it did (in fact, I specifically used the word "generally" to denote this). But, that the brunt of opposition to Chavez is from the more well-off sectors of society is well-documented.

Also, the same situation regarding computer access doesn't necessarily apply in the US because much of the American lower class is still wealthy enough to afford a computer, and there is a greater incidence of facilities in the US which offer access to a computer. Moreover, in Venezuela fewer homes have physical access to the Internet, due to infrastructural deficiencies. Accordingly, the rural poor, especially, would have even less access to the Internet. And you have failed to consider that the poor Venezuelans with whom you converse over the Internet might not represent the actual rate of computer access amongst the poor.

Further, I said I am weary of "actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement" (i.e. recruiting Venezuelan people in particular—that's what I meant). I ardently support your idea of recruiting all editors indiscriminately, but recruiting people of a certain nationality will inevitably, though unintentionally, result in a geopolitical bias. In other words, an all-Venezuelan editing team will produce as much bias as an all-Canadian editing team, for instance. The world view is what we strive for; that's the gist of my comment. I see where you're coming from, however, in that the Venezuelan view in the article is dwarfed by the view of outsiders; thus, the Venezuelan view needs to be actively promoted in order to remove the Western bias and attain the "world view". I really didn't mean to solicit such outrage from you, and I apologise for doing so.

And don't worry, I'm not just abandoning the article. I will simply contribute less during the final two weeks of this month due to exams, though I will continue to be active in the talk page I reckon. Realize that I am not the only person working on this article, and progress will continue even with my reduced edits: that is the beauty of this Wikipedia community. I really can't let Wikipedia take precedence over my exams now; just be patient! :-)

--WGee 04:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WGee, I do know just a thing or two about statistical concepts and stochastic processes, so you really don't need to tell me about bias and non-random samples (such as my own). It was an example :-)

I didn't ask that you actively recruit Venezuelans. I didn't advocate for an all-Venezuelan editing team. I asked that you show respect towards them, so that they would be encouraged to participate in the project and not feel chased off. Can you help me understand how this fits with the comment about Venezuelan participation? Anyway, I'm glad you understood my bigger point. I respect anyone who apologizes and works in good faith, and I apologize for any misunderstanding, and the tangent/lecture, as well.

Patient? What was your hurry to revert Hugo Chávez to a six-month old, outdated version, during a time that you knew you would be too busy to clean up the resulting dead links, outdated information, and missing references? You might have mentioned the possibility of a revert on talk page, let consensus develop, and then done it at a time that you could work on the resulting cleanup and restore. Others have suggested it may have been a desperate attempt to keep the FA status, but is the article in FA status now? There have been no major contributions or improvements since shortly after the revert, leaving the impression that you all reverted and just left the cleanup mess to (who?). I hope that's not accurate. I understand that you've got exams, but if you and User:172 don't plan to finish what you started, then we've got to figure out what's next, and the article will need to be tagged or returned to the referenced (albeit poorly written) version.

As far as who is likely contributing to Wiki from the Venezuelan angle and what kind of bias may be introduced, I don't feel that you know Venezuela or the dynamic affecting the bias very well, but enough ... Good luck on your exams !! Sandy 05:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hugo

Hi Sandy

I'm unsure what to do about it. Looks as though it should be demoted. If not, it should be listed for major review at FAR.

Tony 14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect a major review is called for. Better to close it off, retaining its FA status (if it's not a clear demotion) before listing it.

I've been busy listing trashy FAs for major reviews today. There needs to be a good clean-out of lazy FAs. But each listing, I think, should have a clear, cogent set of reasons. Your assistance is appreciated. (Have a look at the current discussion at the talk page of the FAC room. Tony 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's WP:FAR, a merging of the previous FA Removal Candidates with an existing process. So it's only a few days old, but already the list is expanding rapidly. Tony 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez FARC

Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez? Since it was your nomination, I'd like to hear your opinion on the new developments. Regards, Sandy 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally am not fond of the long revert as it erased months of work on the article, some of which was positive. That seemed to me like a desparate attempt to maintain the article's featured status. joturner 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I hope it was just an attempt to restore a better article, even though not good enough for featured status. Well, if it's current state (dead external links, biased sources, missing internal links, unreferenced, massively long, and POV) is enough to keep its featured status, that's not a good sign for Wiki. Thanks for responding, cheers, Sandy 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored the 10 December 2005 version: the featured article version that appeared on Wikipedia's main page. [16] Please see the diff for evidence. And I stress again that progress is being made to bring the article up to date. Also, you should note that Wikipedia's article length recommendation is based on outdated technical limitations and fails to make allowances for the complexity of an article's topic. It appears to me that the article is not verbose, merely comprehensive. And I do not wish to sacrifice the article's comprehensiveness to satisfy the time-constrained; most casual readers only take what they need, anyway. -- WGee 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on Chavez

There is so much going on with this article right now that I wouldn't dare to be involved for fear of being sucked into time-sapping disputes I can't be bothered with at the moment, but I want to say that from a safe distance you appear to have been putting in a solid effort on his entry and I hope you continue. I also find the comment you mentioned earlier on this talk page to be horrifying. Good luck. --TJive 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, TJive ... I appreciate it. I'll admit to being very undecided right now about whether Wiki is worth it, because what is going on is becoming curiouser and curiouser. In the meantime, I'm wasting tons of time reading policy, policy, policy. Sandy 04:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that with any potential legalistic threats that some editors merely mask POV or general edit warring under the facade of pedantry. The main policies you should keep in mind are WP:NPOV (pertaining to content) and WP:3RR (pertaining to behavior). Otherwise, the focus should retain on the objective of making a well-written and verifiable article rather than a hodge-podge of mismatched claims backed up by blogs and far left rags. I think you either know all of this or are coming to realize it, so I hope this fact does not discourage you from continuing. --TJive 04:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as dumb as I look, but I'm not learning fast enough, either :-) Sandy 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it is not in relation to this particular issue I've often wondered if Wikipedia should not have a 18+ only stance. Just a thought. --TJive 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Restore Saravask revert

Restoring for response Saravask comments to my talk page, which were reverted by him on 5 May 2006, following my oppose vote on his RFA.

Concerns about POV

This is in response to your latest comment. There may be some truth to your concerns about POV. Just for my own information, could you just list some info/facts in the Chavez articles that violate NPOV (other than the "coup" naming; for that you may want to list one or more refs)? Then you can set about correcting it (I can give advice if you want). I'm also wondering if the perceived POV is incapable of correction due to all the refs (are they excessively intimidating to new contributors, scaring them from entering corrections; or the balance of leftist (pro-Chavez) sources to anti-Chavez ones is too high). I myself don't anticipate working on those articles in the future. Good luck, and take care. Saravask 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

tables

Hi - I've ordered the tables in Súmate (and cleaned up the markup a bit). To get them in the right order all I did was move them into vertical order in the source. This should have worked for you, too (very curious). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My belated response and apology

Sarvask, I apologize for my late response. To explain my previous silence, because you reverted your comments, I decided it was best (at that time) to respect your decision and not comment at all.

With the benefit of hindsight, I must extend a sincere apology to you for the stance I took with respect to the POV in the article during your RFA. Now that I am more aware of what you were up against in working on the Hugo Chávez article, I commend you for being able to accomplish what you did. Some of what has gone on in that article makes it difficult to assume good faith with all edits. Further, working on the article is difficult, due to the pro- and anti-Chávez fanaticism, sometimes complicated by issues of first language, and the need to read legalistic and other references in Spanish. I now fully understand your reluctance to work on the article, and doubt that I will continue there either.

To answer the question you had posed:

• 1) The perceived POV, which has now been discussed at length on the Chavez talk page, has much more to do with all that is not said than what is written in the article. (See talk page for multiple examples of important items which were never addressed.) It appears that, because Venezuelan participation in the writing was somewhat limited, anything that didn't get through the headline bias on English-language media didn't make it into the article, and some of these issues and events go a long way towards explaining the complex history of Chávez and Venezuela.

• 2) Yes, the lists of references may have been intimidating to new editors, but not because of length, but because of perceived futility of combatting bias introduced from unbalanced sources. It is my *opinion* that many Venezuelans were so incredibly disillusioned by Jimmy Carter's role, and by the utter failure of the international media to pay attention to the events in Venezuela (due to competing Middle East issues). Hence, they may be rarely inclined to take on perceived media bias, or to try to tackle the preponderance of bias that comes from the left, which had done a far better job of paying attention to Chavez and Venezuela.[17]It takes a lot of work to balance the biased sources, and it is made more difficult by the fact that the international English-language media wasn't paying attention, or that the preponderance of reporting included pro-Chavez bias. One really has to know the events to know where to find and reference information from reliable sources. Bilingual people who lived the events are more likely to have the knowledge and resources to find and reference information. Their participation is not encouraged by actions like unilateral reverts of six months' worth of good faith effort with no talk page discussion or consensus, so I don't expect the article to move beyond its current state or avoid edit wars and vandalism.

• 3) As I've discussed elsewhere on this talk page, I also believe there is an ongoing problem with encouraging Venezuelans to actively participate in the editing and talk page discussions. I had set about to painstakingly work on the non-Venezuelan bias in the article, by actively encouraging Venezuelans (of all political persuasions) to post, and helping with translation, grammar, and ESL issues. I believe a read-through of this talk page, and the fact that at least one Venezuelan editor who had made valuable contributions will not be returning following the reverts, validates my concerns about the systemic bias in the article.

I hope this answers the questions you didn't raise (reference to your revert :-) and again, I apologize for the stance I took in your RFA with respect to the POV. Regards, Sandy 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well....

I didn't mean to imply that I knew him for long. I only encountered him a few days ago. --TJive 12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez Version Dispute

Back to you in my talk.

MSTCrow 04:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

About your question on surnames

(Re: Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela) Sandy, your example is wrong. Both presidents are mentioned with both their last names. This cultural difference often causes funny mistakes and no small deal of mischief. In all of Latin America (not just in Venezuela), you formally use both your surnames: the first and main one is your father's, the second one is your mother's. For abbreviation, however, or when referring informally to someone, you mention just the main surname. To complicate things further, some people insist in using additional first names. Thus, just a few examples: Marcos (one first name) Pérez Jiménez (two surnames); Carlos Andrés (two first names) Pérez (one surname, no one remembers his second surname); Hugo Rafael (two first names) Chávez Frías (two surnames). But that's easy. It was a lot more complicated in the past: Simón Bolívar had an extraordinarily complex name, a common custom at his time: Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad (four names, the last one referring to the Holy Trinity) Bolívar Palacios y Blanco (two surnames, the second one a compound family name). I'd advise to study the article on Family name, under 'Spain and Hispanic areas' - it's fairly accurate.

Regards, AVM 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, AVM. I responded on Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela. Saludos, Sandy 00:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: apology

No hard feelings, man. :-) I think it's best if I don't involve myself with the revert you mentioned, but either way I do hope you manage to get the Chavez stuff to a more balanced state. Take care. Saravask 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Coup and Documentary

Do we really still need a citation for the sentence on footage of the coup, in the main article. The statement mentions mentions footage as "allegedly doctored", isn't that neutral enough?--Salvador Allende 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it

I see you're busy: a few words. There are numerous daily errors in puncutation, spelling and grammar introduced into all the articles, along with incomplete references and errors in references. Some well meaning and helpful editors are not fluent in written English, and part of the daily work is cleanup: it goes with the territory, but I have days where I feel like the cleaning crew, and my prose, grammar and spelling aren't great either! I just combined all of the comments from several different articles into the Criticism article, and am just beginning on it. I chose it first since I don't see how we can pare down the main article without first addressing the daughter articles, one by one -- cleaning them up, referencing them, seeing what's there. If you make it to the criticism article, tread lightly, as it's still in very bad shape, mostly unreferenced, incomplete, and a compilation of a lot of writing from a lot of places. It will take me days to get it to a place where it's workable, and in the meantime, unreferenced, incomplete statements get added. Have fun. Sandy 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I am not as active in this part of the Chavez woods as you. My big pet peeve (if you haven't noticed) are WP:Weasel but I will try and fix grammar as I go along. I am not the very best person for correcting spelling though, as I make a lot of spelling errors myself as I write.

You said you are not Venezuelan, are you American? I am American. You said you had been to Venezuela before, can I ask what for?

Don't worry--I will stay away from the criticism section for now.

My interest is a passing one, simply because we watched The revolution will not be televised in class, and my classmate is Venezuelan and very anti-Chavez. The questions I asked on the talk page are not my own, but my professors, who showed The revolution will not be televised in class. Signed:Travb (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What for? LOL -- it wasn't always the hell-hole it is now :-) No reason was needed except a great place to work and live. Now I understand why you asked that question on the talk page: it didn't make sense for a talk page question. Had I known you wanted personal info, I would have gone for it. "Weasle" words are the least of the problems in these articles, and sometimes they are only there because of ESL issues. Sandy 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate Criticism

I am sorry that you feel that legitimate criticism about a communist President is nonsence. America has elected Communists to office as our President too. A communist can be the head of a Republic. Communist is the basis of government rule, this can be done outside of a Dictatorship, and under Marx's Manifesto, the existance of a Dictatorship would be contrary to the Communist government. Any good communist would be eligible to hold a ruling position. The people of Venezuela appear to want to live in a Communist State. That's Okay for them. But it does not make it nonsense.

Oh, and making legitimate arguments in Wikipedia, is not considered Vandalism. The definition is clear and quite easily understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkWolf (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 July 2006

Please remember to sign your talk page entires with four tildes (~). Responded on your talk page. Sandy 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chavez category

Can anyone teach me how to edit and fix categories? Why is Sumate alphabeticized under C, and how does it get fixed in Category:Hugo Chávez ? And, how do I get bios to alphabeticize under last name, rather than first name, in Category:Tourette syndrome? TIA, Sandy 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The ordering of categories is controlled by the sortkey (the thing after the | in the category tag). At Súmate, [[Category:Hugo Chávez|Chavez, Hugo]] is present. The sortkey is Chavez, Hugo. The category will alphabetise Súmate under C (for Chavez). Most of the time you don't need a sortkey, only for names. Ask again (using {helpme} I will sleep soon) if this isn't clear. Documentation: Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting, Wikipedia:Categorisation_FAQ#How do_I_sort_the_article_differently_on the_category_page.3F, Help:Category#Order of_the_lists.3B setting_sort_keys. --Commander Keane 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mission Barrio Adentro

As one of the editors presently working on the Hugo Chavez article, I wondered if you could take a look at the above page. I'm interested in the lower section - as it crosses into one of my editing areas - including Healthcare of Cuba. I wondered if you could add any comments to the Mission Barrio Adentro talk page, I'm interested in what kind of response people have to the material presented as it may need some work.--Zleitzen 03:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Regarding 172's comments

While I was not particularly offended by your comment, it did seem as though it was intended to question my competence as an editor. However, since that was evidently not its purpose, let's drop the issue, apology accepted.

You claimed that 172's participation effects discord amongst the editors, but that's not what I've gathered from my observations. It appears that you are the only editor who finds 172 and/or his contributions disagreeable; there is not a general atmosphere of discontent. Also, 172 did not rewrite the lead; rather, he simply merged a few paragraphs to improve structure and readability, and slightly altered the wording to improve fluidity.

Thus, you shouldn't label someone a source of discord merely because they make some edits with which you don't agree (otherwise, Flanker and I would be a "sources of discord", as well). And he is certainly not creating an obstacle to FA status, as you suggested. In fact, I see no reason why you would say such a thing, since his contributions to both the talk page and the article are overwhelmingly constructive. I think you are overreacting to 172's contributions and unjustly treating him as though he doesn't belong in the discussion. I suggest you abandon your apparant dislike of him and begin to work with him cordially like you would any other editor.

-- WGee 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the broken refs to which you're referring. -- WGee 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The two notes are now fixed, but since the Foreign Affiars one now only refers to the "credible reports", the referenced page numbers need to be updated. -- WGee 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chavez

That is exactly what I argue, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez may very well be the most POV article in all of those related to the topic, and it has nothing to do with the name. All of this was inevitable Sandy, that article had to go through the same rigorous standard of the mother article, all that has changed was the starting point and that the decision was taken today instead of god knows the mother article was finished.Flanker 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Show good faith

I've told you why I don't believe the removal of certain critics' claims effects a pro-Chavez bias. Please explain how the removal of portions of uncountered criticism, without a reduction in the actual size of the criticism section, would make the article pro-Chavez. -- WGee 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

About the vandalism warning made

The prose was referenced, conforms to WP:RS and does not violate WP:BLP please do not remove. You want to debate it fine in the talk page, but your deletion is not conducive to an encyclopedia.Flanker 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hola. Primero que nada yo no presumo buena fe de gente que edita articulos agregando información no neutral como el de Hugo Chávez, y sobre lo de Norberto Cerole tiene razón lo he imculpado erroneamente, fue un error de mi parte mencionarle a usted, me confundí de articulo. Bye.--K4zem 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pero si usted mismo viola por lo menos 1 de esos 5 pilares que menciona el "Neutral point of view", en fin no sigo ya que nota que esta discusión es el cuento de nunca a acabar.--K4zem 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:) Chavista

May go away for some time. But will always come back. Cheers. Anagnorisis 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk:chavista#Blogs are not reliable sources JRSP 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fyi, the objection to blogs in WP:RS is just a more verbose version of the same objection in WP:V (which is indeed a policy). However, perhaps something in [18] or a search in a dedicated database of that type might still provide a less disputed source. —xyzzy_n 19:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks xy :-) WP:V says "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Same weasle as on WP:RS (typically). I don't think a search will prove fruitful, given the restrictions on freedom of the press in Venezuela and the inattention the international media paid to Venezuela until recently. I'm going to let JRSP do the homework of getting a policy read on the notion of its use for a colloquialism, as I've grown weary of doing work for him. Sandy 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it’s a matter of interpretation, then. (I tend to understand the policy as excluding blogs always, except in the cases given below the bit you quoted.) By the way, ‘weasel’? You’ve spent way too much time at WP:FAC. ;) —xyzzy_n 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No kidding :-) Time to get back to work on *my* stuff! Sandy 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy

Hi Sandy, I can't keep up with the Chavez pages, it's moving very fast and it's too difficult to know what's coming or going. I may set some time aside to look at the crit page and take a look at what has been deleted - the last time I looked I couldn't figure why some of the material was going. --Zleitzen 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think (not sure yet) that I've added back in the cited material that was deleted. The page is still a MESS, and the disruptive editing made it very hard. Now I feel that I have to start over, and no one is helping. I haven't had time to work on it: I have no idea if there is any flow at all, haven't copy edited, there's still a lot missing, in short, it's just now got the "stuff" back to a point where it can be expanded, balanced, and polished. There may still be pieces needed from other articles to provide context and flow. I hope my strong message on the talk page about JRSP's disruptive editing style has registered. I've hesitated to spend time in that article until work can be done in a less taxing environment. (Have a look at Anderson now -- I don't know all the legal terms, so didn't do some parts.) Thanks !! Sandy 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lilian Cristina Aya Ramirez

Hi, AAAAA. Your contributions to Lilian Cristina Aya Ramirez have been deleted (not by me :-) per WP:BLP (all criticism of living persons must be well-sourced), and WP:V, which says blogs aren't usually reliable sources. I've searched the intenet and El Universal, looking for reliable sources for the important information from Reconocelos, but have found nothing. I'm not very good at searches in Spanish, and don't know the press in Peru; perhaps that is the best place to look. I hope you're able to help locate information from a reliable source, so the information can be returned to the article. Sandy 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the tip. I don't have other sources of information, other than http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Lilian+Cristina+Aya+Ramirez&btnG=Google+Search. As per the "criticism", I have tried to make it as factual as possible. I cannot say the current source is reliable or not, but Reconocelos.com looks to me as a site that is trying to show faces and short biographies of political figures in Venezuela. They obviously have an anti-chavez tone, but it seems to me they try to be factual.--AAAAA 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez

Hi, While I agree with you that Chávez's comments are important, and anti-Semitic, I think Flanker is right that the content regarding the incident on the main Hugo Chávez page should be cut down with a link to a main page on Venezuelan-Israeli relations. Republitarian 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

At the time, I just wanted to get it down on Wikipedia. I agree it's all good, that's why I added it. What do you think about starting a new page on Venezuelan-Israeli relations? Or, would a page on Hugo Chávez and anti-Semitism be better? Respectfully, Republitarian 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So you would be against moving this info to Venezuelan-Israeli relations? Republitarian 01:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, I will try to work them in later today. Republitarian 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New editor unaware of minefield?

Ha ha. True. Read the article. Looks documented and supported. Besides, it is true regarding Chavez looking to pick up a new diplomatic fight. He seems to get a kick out of doing it, as shown by his pattern of fighting with a different country about every 3 months (Mexico, Peru, Israel, etc.). Cheers Anagnorisis 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes

Hey, if there are any more Venezuela-related votes, like the merge vote, please point them out and I'll try and help you - by voting, as I'm not a fan of Hugo n' company. Respectfully, Republitarian 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

False claims

Making false vandaliam claims or threatening to is not the sign of a serious editor so if you want to negotiate seriously please dont talk rubbish or muddle a seriousd POV dispute with vandalism (policy is very clear on this and you are POV pushing by trying to distort policy). The fact that you are using Vandalsim templates to pursue tyour POV policy will have to be reported as harrassment if it continues. Please dont muddle a POV dispute (which there is an abundance of evidence to prove this is) and vandalism. You haven't even referenced your claim, I bet you the Venezuelan government for one would disagree with you, SqueakBox 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox

I have warned the user about all of this, and told him that he should just accept that Pedro Carmona was president for the day. There is no need to fear him, unless, of course, you don't want to get involved; this type of thing that he does is what drives away users from Wikipedia. Please don't let it happen to you. Please note that if SqueakBox removes the infobox from the article, revert it. The three-revert rule does not apply to this. Let me know if you need further help. Regards and thanks, Iolakana|^T 13:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Was he president?

I decided to answer leaving a comment in that page [19]. Cheers. Anagnorisis 00:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wayward ref

Thanks, but please wait to edit further on this page until tomorrow. I have lots I'm adding tonight. Respectfully, Republitarian 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have time, links should be changed to refs on Tarek William Saab, though let me just say I hate the ref style currently used on the Israeli-Venezuelans relations page. I much prefer the type I used on MPAC. Respectfully, Republitarian 03:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, cite web? (I'm not sure, since MPAC mixes ref styles, which should be corrected.) Here's the problem: cite web works fine on short articles, but as soon as you plug it into a very long article with a lot of refs, it chunks up the KB something awful. None of the Chavez articles use cite web, partly because the main Hugo Chávez article is absurdly long, and was hard to edit with all that extra overhead. I'll look at Saab later (I can't fix 'em all). Sandy 15:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping fix up the Israeli relations page. I'm done editing for tonight. Hopefully, just considering the sheer length of the page right now, it won't be merged. Respectfully, Republitarian 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarek William Saab

Thanks for changing the external links to refs on Tarek William Saab. If you have time, I just noticed that Carlos Andrés Pérez has neither refs nor links. I saw that you mentioned a recent news article about the Israeli-Venezuelan relationship, but my Spanish es muy bad so if there's good info, someone else will have to add it to Venezuelan-Israeli relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

United States-Venezuela relations

I think you may be interested in United States-Venezuela relations. It's in a very poor and largely neglected state. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, I've notified several other Venezuela-editing users. I just let you know because you seem interested in Chávez's foreign policy. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Venezuelan-Israeli relations-August 15 edits

Your last two edits to Venezuelan-Israeli relations, made on August 15, were reverted K4zem. I actually agree with him on this, but I thought you should know. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Chavez bot

Glad you've decided to pick up the accents on Chavez, but that has permanently messed up all the references, since most of the newspaper articles and other references did not have accents :-) No way to fix it now, but please stop. This work has to be done manually. Sandy 19:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, could you please give me an example of a diff where this happened? If things need to be fixed, I'll fix them; it's my bot after all :-) —Mets501 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There's way too many to fix: almost none of the media sources use the accent mark in their titles, but each one would have to be checked manually. I don't know if that will cause a problem on searching for links that go dead and things like that in the future? My guess would be that it's best not to worry about it, and hope people will figure it out: I think fixing it now would be a monumental task because you can't manually undo what the bot automatically did. Sandy 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at all of the edits the bot made. It screwed up one image (which I fixed); I'll make sure it skips images in the future. As far as references, I'll program the bot to skip changes in links and between <ref> tags. Thanks for letting me know! —Mets501 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

whew, I just checked one, and I think it will be OK. For example, the article "Hugo Chávez Accused of Anti-Semitism" is referenced in Venezuelan-Israeli relations (it had no accent mark before). If I google on the new title, with the accent, Google still returns the article correctly. Seems like it will be OK, even though technically that means the article titles are incorrect in the references now? Sandy 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can leave what was done already, there should be no problems. I've adjusted the bot and tested it, it now skips replacements in images, math tags, nowiki tags, ref tags, links, and comments. Can you think of any others? (Thanks so much for your help!) —Mets501 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of others right now, but I'll keep an eye open and let you know. I checked all the articles on my watchlist, and found one other messed up image (can't remember where), but more importantly, I didn't find any actual corrections needed, rather accents introduced to the refs, so I reverted those. It seems we're doing a pretty good job on the accents after all! Sandy 20:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm really sorry, and thanks for your help. Should I write that this is OK now: diff? —Mets501 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a note that all was OK now, and the bot is in good shape for the future. I was surprised, in the articles I checked, to find the accents in such good shape. Thanks for your hard work ! Sandy 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work following through. To test the bot, I put this in my sandbox: [20], and told the bot to replace the word "Replace" by the word "Done". It only made one replacement, the first instance, which wasn't in any tags or anything. It skipped everything else, so it's working perfectly! —Mets501 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! Why don't you test it on the main Hugo Chavez article? (Sorry, no accent when I'm typing from the laptop)? Sandy 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good thing I tried that! One more thing it can't change: templates —Mets501 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the changes: diff. It looks good! It didn't change any references or links or images or templates. —Mets501 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with bad "fair use" images

There is a disconnect between our policy (bad fair use images should be deleted within forty-eight hours) and our practice (tag them with a template indicating a problem which puts them into a week-long deletion queue, and discuss them endlessly if someone objects to their deletion). There are also more "dealing with fair use" templates than even I can remember. This is not just inefficient, it is also confusing. This will get sorted out eventually, but for now, you can see what I've done at Image:Chavezsurvivescoup.JPG and Image:October1993crisis.jpg. For all I know the former is some sort of uniquely iconic photograph that articles have been written about (although I doubt it), but we need to demonstrate that and discuss it, otherwise we're just using a convenient AP photo to illustrate our article. Jkelly 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Venezuela relations

I agree. This is unacceptable. Take this to arbitration. Republitarian 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you've requested mediation before, then according to the guideline on resolving disputes the next step is to request an advocate. If this fails, then abritration. Respectfully, Republitarian 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The last 4 votes on the merge proposal have all been against merging. The tally is now at 7 against merging and 5 for merging. If they attempt to Afd this then they will lose... badly. Respectfully, Republitarian 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I do still have some concerns about the article. We do need to expand the history, because it does reflect poorly (unfairly) upon Venezuela. I'm looking for sources. The most interesting finding, to me, is that Chávez has never denied his anti-Semitism. And, this is but one small issue in a much bigger picture: the same bias is pushed on a much larger scale throughout the Chávez articles. Sandy 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Vote stacking"

Ridiculous. He accuses me of vote stacking, and then of selectively contacting users. I showed him his error and now he's trying to cover it up with technicalities. My patience is through. I'm working on Israel-Japan relations for the next week or so. Unless someone tries something destructive and pointless, like an Afd, don't expect much interaction on Venezuela-pages from me. All the best, Republitarian 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

God knows I can't be on wikipedia all day. I'm glad to see that there are people trying to combat the chavistas and Fidelistas on Wikipedia and Wikinews.I do the little I can with the time I ahve to make sure Wikinews does't get radicalized. I believe there should be a serious investigation done into who is writing the wiki articles and editing venezuelan articles in favor of Chavez. It seems there are army Pro-Chavez wikipedians going from article to article making it Pro-Chavez, Aleksander Byod has commented on this many times.

As one who enjoys wikipedia and defends it as a valid source capable of being cited in serious documentation, any Chavez article neutralizes that struggle this should't be about pro-Chavez or anti-Chavez, this should be about how (what I believe) are group of propagandists paid somehow by Chavistas to work full time on giving wikipedia a pro-chavez slant. --Carlitos (user:the 13th 4postle) 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the published rumors that Cubans were cleansing Wiki were not lost on me. Some of these editors delete criticism as if they were paid by the word. While I appreciate your encouragement, unless you dig in and help on these articles, it doesn't do me much good :-)) Sandy 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia=waste of time

Im beginning to think Wikipedia is a waste of time. The trail of looniness never ends... Republitarian 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Carmona

I have added a notice to the talk page of the article about the dispute. When you have time, please add a comment. Thanks, Iolakana•T 14:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandy 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

El Hatillo

Thanks for the comments, since I have seen you around WP:PR and WP:FAC, I was actually hoping that you would give me your opinions. I'm out of town, so I have limited access to a computer, but I will address each of your concerns individually later. Thank you Sandy for the great peer review, and yes, I would love your help if you don't mind.--enano ^(Talk) 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why this ended up in the Chávez section. Anyway, I began a discussion about El Hatillo Municipality in the talk page, I haven't started editing yet, but I replied to some of your concerns and I will be editing in the following days. Thanks for the help. --enano ^(Talk) 04:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Already reverted it. Anagnorisis 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as things that were in each article are not lost, and are all merged in one, it may make sense having just one. I do not know if it is a policy, but at least seems to be an ongoing practice. So the other editor may be right in wanting to have only one article. No problem. Cheers. Anagnorisis 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Massive revert" incident recalled on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations

To repeatedly bring up that point in history is not productive, and only serves to inflame tensions. Thus, I don't think that the incident should have been raised at all, on any talk page. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explanation.

I should have worded my edit summary more carefully to avoid offending you, but I do think that you should not categorize other people's comments using scare-quotes, or in any other fashion that would detract from the importance of a person's comments. I don't notice anything "aggressive" about my edit summaries in general, though. Your edit summaries, on the other hand, are quite inflammatory by my standards.

-- WGee 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: A question

Anyone can add a warning template. But if the user knows about the policies discussed in the warning template, and you are not neutral in the situation, then I think adding a template would not be productive.

In the past I was in a situation where I wanted an apology for a wrong doing. I learnt that in Wikipedia apologies are rarely extracted, and really are not that helpful anyway.

If the articles continue to be disrupted, RfCs have failed, and you can garner supporters (for want of a better word) perhaps arbitration is the appropriate next step.--Commander Keane 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Thanks for helping with any refs. My references are usually terribly laid out, not being a computer person I just don't think I have the technical mindset to format them correctly. I always try but inevitably make errors!--Zleitzen 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm glad the writing is neutral and well done, and I'm happy to expand refs. Sandy 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is-Ven rel

Do Crtl+F on "Zionist."[21]. Keep up the good work ;). -a Friend. 4.249.3.7 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, I missed that when I skimmed that article. Thanks, Sandy 00:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Chavez

You left a comment on my talk page about referenes in the Chavez article. I did remove a few references, but as noted in the summary most were simply consolidations. As an example, there was a paragraph with 4 references to the same work; I removed the first three and expanded the page range on the last to accomodate. (All pages were within about 10 of each other, if memory serves.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I din't realize that this was a bad day for editing. I spend well over an hour combing through the article. As for the page numbers: the original references were to page spreads like 66-71, and I needed up changing the last one by just a few numbers on either side. I'm talking about 4 or 5 references to the same source in one paragraph -- this is excessive, and it's causing page bloat.

I'm not new to this article. I've been trying to help out with the economics behind various sections (since economics is 'my thing'). I even tried to talk the specifics over on the discussion page, and let others decide the particular form rather than trying to do everything on my own. For paring the cruft from the article, though, it almost has to be a one-person task.

Look, I'm going to go through my edit carefully and see if I can address some of your concerns, but the article really does need a lot of work. Weren't you the editor leading the charge earlier to get this article back to FA status? I'm just trying to do the grunt work here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not familiar with the WP:MOS on dates. I edit mainly technical (math & economics) articles, and they have a different format for references and dates in general. Sorry. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"adding content on Economics that isn't referenced, or that refers to another Wiki article" -- To be honest, my purpose in the edit was more to spur discussion than anything. I didn't want to leave the WP source, and the Economist article I cited was reliable but kind of second rate. Had I thought it over more, I would have put it on the Talk page to begin with, but it ended up there and I'm happy with the results. (You noticed, I'm sure, that I was good to my word on staying clear on that edit; since I was accused of promoting a POV I figured it was best to just back out and just suggest parameters, which seemed to bring people from both sides together for the edit.) You're right, again, that the original economic edit was ill-advised, but the intent and outcome were good -- well, the latter is just my view, but you haven't expressed dissatisfaction.

"at least what is there is well-written and well-referenced" -- Actually I differ with you on well-written. It seems every other (or every third) sentence goes from promoting one POV to another, and the whole is not well put together. I don't have the skill to patch these up, and I imagine few do. I'm a competent editor (in the classic sense, like a book editor; I did that for a few years), but not a referee.

I stress that the page numbers I changed were already large ranges, and I didn't increase them much at all. It essentially said to read four or five sections of the book, all of which overlapped. Having a reference after every sentence just gives it a ragged look.

There are further points to discuss about the references, which I'll avoid in this copyedit and try to discuss either with you directly or on the Talk page (sigh). Having high-quality references in an article like this is more important, in my view, than having sheer quantity. There are many refs which are to unreliable sources, and I haven't even had time to read through a quarter of them. If you have thoughts on this I'd love to hear them. I've worked on articles where the majority of references are to 'crackpot' fly-by-night websites, and while this surely isn't one, I've seen a number of refs that could be improved. Also, some are reliable but overly one-sided, so not too many should be included if others can be used instead. The US Dept of State is quite reliable, for example, but entirely critical -- I'd like to replace a few of those references with some from major international organizations, as an example. This isn't a project for today, though. We can talk about this later, I hope. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As to the speech that has attracted attention to the article -- I'm embarrased to admit that I didn't even watch it, though I of course read the reports about it. So much for being politically aware, eh? CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll concede to your original request and not try to edit the article yet. I hope to discuss the article with you in more detail, though. You truly seem concrned about having this article done 'the right way', which puts you in a very small minority.

I'l try to put out the fires in the article for the meantime. Thanks for the WP:FAITH. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Chavez and Amazon

I'm amused that just after I took out the Amazon ranking reference and commented on the talk page I saw your comment that it wasn't relevant to the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's far from a reliable source. Further, the VHeadlines article doesn't particularly support the quote in the Chavez article: it slams Bush, but has nothing good to say about the speech save that it took Chavez "courage" to say it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela

First of all thanks for your ongoing balanced view of the Venezuela subject matter. You seem to be the only editor on that subject who can keep a level head. As far as you comment on the specifics of the referencing, i have performed further editing to fix matters in one article and i shall do the same to the other article within the next hour. best regards. Phasechange 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why difamatory???

READ BIBLIOGRAPHY and follow the links.. --'''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

if Portafolio.com.co isn't a verifiable source then eltiempo.com (who owns it) or the nytimes.com aren't either. Portafolio and Dinero Magazine are the colombian version of Fortune Magazine. I doubt yor spanish knowledge and if you do know the language please take your time to read. --'''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I did write tourette's syndrome by mistake.. Guillain-Barré syndrome section was erased and can be verifiable..

Ministerio de justicia del gobierno de Colombia --'''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 23:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So why did you revert my edits? They were sourced, and not from opinion websites like your edit summary would indicate. The possibly defamatory content is mr. Diaz's involvement in the death of his fan, which is reported in several reputable places, including a government website [22] (I guess I should've put that as a reference in the first place). Just google for her name and take a pick from the sources. - Bobet 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I didn't know much about the subject either (my interest in the subject was that I stumbled upon it on deadendpages in february and wikified it), but the information looks very legitimate, and the Colombian ministry of justice (in my link above) sounds like a reliable source to me, whether it's on the Internet or not.

As for the other source, it's a seemingly popular Colombian newspaper's website, and besides, there's nothing defamatory about saying that some people were killed in a plane crash. - Bobet 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how can an official government document can't be better than a newspaper article... they can both be biased, however, the links I'm planning to use as reference are based on LEGAL determinations of judges and approved by a supreme court. here I have a better one: Diomedes Diaz V. TeleColombia (in Spanish) , This was a "tutela" (legal action) interposed by Diomedes against TeleColombia which he lost and exposes events from the crime. What I would like you to do is please help me edit this to meet Wikipedia standards... --'''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for keeping an eye, again, I emailed one of Colombia's newspapers asking about why they don't have an online archive of previous editions like the Nytimes. Anyway, I found another LEGAL on line and verifiable document in regard of Diomedes' trial. I'll start working on it and post it as soon as I'm done with it. Gracias --'''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag (Chavez)

You know, it keeps being removed and I just keep putting it back. You'd think the number of daily reverts would convince people {{POV}} was needed... In any case, I actually haven't been helping out much on the Chavez reverts today. I've been trying to rewrite the abc conjecture page, and it's just as need of revision—though at last it doesn't have vandals. Heh. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)