Talk:El Líbero

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chile Mid‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

Edit warring[edit]

Bedivere and Dentren, you need to stop edit warring and start having a conversation about your disagreement. You are both experienced editors and as such, you should know better than to go back and forth multiple times reverting each other without any attempt at having a constructive dialogue. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku Thanks for your good intentions. I have taken this stance on Dentren's actions because of his behavior not just here but in other Chile -related articles. It's a pattern and it cannot be accepted. I have reported them. Thanks again and hope Dentren stops such behavior, which only wastes other's precious time. Bedivere (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revirvlkodlaku, thank you for caring about this. Regarding Bedivere large removals I think it is appropriate that he discuss them here before proceeding in his usual unilateral ways. Dentren | ^Talk 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this user has resorted to making groundless accusations about supposed sockpuppetry. I am not reverting them, but strongly suggest someone else do. As said above, and given their editing pattern, Dentren is making some POV-pushing edits and disregards policy and attacks others. They should and will be stopped. Bedivere (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the two of you are just going to continue reverting each other back and forth. Will one of you report edit warring, or shall I? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did report, @Revirvlkodlaku. Bedivere (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edits of Augustogonzalezmor, which Dentren has restored: 1. What's the point of describing the ANP? Should it link to its own article. Is it relevant that its director is a member of the board of ANP? 2. Adding the so-called investigation on the accusations against Boric -which were disproven by the very person who "denounced" him in the first place- is not relevant at all. --Bedivere (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The connections of newspapers are important for their credibility and other purposes, just as much as telling who owns the newspaper. This provides often more unequivocal evidence than allegations of political position or bias many media are subjected to. Dentren | ^Talk 16:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, please explain why you've jumped into this fray of back-and-forth reverts without even adding an edit summary. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I blocked Dentren for edit warring, so I'm restoring the status quo ante. Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts on undo action[edit]

@Revirvlkodlaku Hello, I would like to understand the reasons why what I added to El Líbero´s Wikipedia website was deleted. Shall you explain to me your reasons specifically referring to every change I made? Lucía Vázquez Ger (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucía Vázquez Ger, thanks for discussing instead of reverting. I undid your edits because I felt that they were either of low quality/relevance (mention of Youtube), lacked references (names of columnists), self-promoting (mentioning Google News, tienda.zigzag reference), or simply unexplained (removing mention of Sebastián Piñera). Hope this helps. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku Hello, thank you for your answer. I am an editor at this media outlet. I value that you appreciate that I discuss instead of reverting, although you did delete my edits without talking before. Please find my comments below:

I do not agree that mentioning the data of subscribers to YouTube is irrelevant or of low quality. Please explain why you mentioned this.

Regarding references of the columnist: the fact that these people are columnists at El Líbero is self explanatory, is evident. I will add El Líbero´s more prominent columnists.

Regarding why I removed the phrase related to Sebastián Piñera, is because that affirmation is not accurate and needed citation. Lucía Vázquez Ger (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucía Vázquez Ger, there is no requirement for an editor to discuss a revert before going ahead with it, as long as they explain their reasoning in the summary. In your case, if you had reverted after I undid your edit, it would have constituted edit warring, however.

The fact that you are an editor at the outlet in question creates a conflict of interest, which should immediately disqualify you from editing it, certainly if you haven't explicitly stated your coi. It appears another one of your edits was reverted today. Please cease interfering with this article henceforth. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucía Vázquez Ger and Revirvlkodlaku: A third opinion was requested on the 20th of September, but I do not see any discussion here since August. I'm going to decline the 3O, as there is still room for discussion in this dispute. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]