User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2012/November

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 17th Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to San Juan, Carolina, Carlos Hernández, Ponce and José Pérez

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Angel Rosa


The article Angel Rosa has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico
Hi, I'm Odie5533. Ahnoneemoos, thanks for creating 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico! It is a great new article, and very important for Puerto Rico's politics. The photograph really adds to the article too. I look forward to watching it develop. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to San Juan, Carolina, Carlos Hernández, Ponce and José Pérez


 * 25th Senate of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to San Juan, Carolina and Ponce


 * Jay Fonseca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Puerto Rican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of former and current First Lady of Puerto Rico


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of former and current First Lady of Puerto Rico. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – First Lady of Puerto Rico. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at First Lady of Puerto Rico – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Before you start splitting lists from articles, you should discuss it first on the article's talk page to gauge consensus. I have started a discussion at Talk:First Lady of Puerto Rico, you are free to join in.  Also, the proper naming format would be List of first ladies of Puerto Rico, not List of former and current... as you did with this, and the secretary of state article.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd rather WP:BOLD. See List of Secretaries of State of the United States. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your Senate Resolution
Hola Ahnoneemoos, how are you? Thank you for all that you do. When I began writing in Wikipedia, I only wanted to write about the Puerto Rican related topics which have have fallen into the cracks of history to be forgotten. That is my passion. I was not seeking any recognitions nor did I ask for them, but they came. Unfortunately there are some people in Wikipedia who are envious or I don't know what is their case, who began to harass me for no reason at all for my work and that is why the page is protected. I can unprotect it for a short time, you just say the word.

Now, in regard to the "list " controversy, one idea is that the tables be returned to their original articles and to also keep the "Lists" with a simple introduction. I don't know, I'll be fine with whatever is decided. what do you think? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Naming convention
Regarding Cuerpo de Bomberos de Puerto Rico, on 01:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC) you wrote "Keep the article titles in English. Use the diplomatic name of the organization as the article title. Include the Spanish and common name in parenthesis. Do not bold the Spanish name, italicize it instead. Use Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style as a guideline."

In case you have not noticed, the article in question has been moved-protected. If you are still interested in changing the title of the article, I remind you that for controversial moves the procedure in place is to discuss it at the article's talk page first. Subsequently, a title change can then be requested at WP:RM. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: there is not an official procedure for moves except the one caused by the MediaWiki software. Shall I remind you that you are the only one describing this move as "controversial"? You can't unilaterally describe it as such. In case you didn't notice, the protection will be removed by November 27. I will be moving the article back to Puerto Rico Firefighters Corp by then. Please read Search engine test, Google searches and numbers, and Naming conventions (use English). &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been move-protected due to move-warring. Therefore it clearly is controversial. Any further moves after the protection expires would be highly disruptive, so I would advise you not to take that action Ahnoneemoos. I see a discussion has now been started, so hopefully a consensus will develop. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus regarding this matter has already been reached years ago, see Naming conventions (use English), Google searches and numbers, and Naming conventions (use English). It was one of the very first matters discussed when Wikipedia started to reach critical mass. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not set in stone and that policy can be rightfully ignored as well as whatever an Administrator declares on its discussion. WP:IAR is beautiful isn't it? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Statehood movement in Puerto Rico
Please return the articles to the state they were in prior to your changes. There was a clear consensus--you don't get to just uniliaterally declare there wasn't just because you don't like the outcome. WP:IAR is not synonymous with "I think it's the right decision"--it, in fact, can only be invoked in cases where it is absolutely clear that the consensus would match the suggested outcome. I can't even figure out what exactly was the prior result, and don't feel like trying right now. So please put it back the way it was, and let me know if you need some sort of admin override (because you have to delete an article with a redirect history). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR is very, very clear: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. That's exactly what I'm doing. WP:IAR doesn't say anything about only being, "invoked in cases where it is absolutely clear that the consensus would match the suggested outcome". It does not say that. Read it again: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Now, per WP:AGF here's what's going on so that you understand why the changes were made:


 * Four user accounts were involved in a poll at Talk:Statehood movement in Puerto Rico regarding the merge between that article and Puerto Rico (proposed state). The user account User:Ego White Tray executed the merge. However, per WP:SPECULATION an article like Puerto Rico (proposed state) would not be appropriate on Wikipedia.


 * In addition to that, there are similar articles in Wikipedia on these subjects. See Puerto Rico independence movement, Puerto Rico free association movement, and.


 * So, where does that leave us? The guys at WikiProject Puerto Rico are now working on this issue. You can see the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico.


 * We will be doing the following:


 * 1) Puerto Rican statehood movement will remain as a stand alone article . This is supported by Puerto Rico independence movement, Puerto Rico free association movement, and.
 * 2) Puerto Rico (proposed state) becomes Proposed political status for Puerto Rico which will detail all the different political status proposed for Puerto Rico and their implications (not only statehood, but independence and free association as well). Essentially it will be the parent article for Puerto Rican statehood movement, Puerto Rico independence movement, and Puerto Rico free association movement with an overview, history, and sections detailing each movement and their implications. The sections detailing the movements will use main.
 * 3) Political status of Puerto Rico will remain as a stand alone article about what Puerto Rico is today.


 * So, as you can see, the user account that originally executed the merge is on board to fix this mess. While I appreciate your concern per WP:AGF, I politely request that you do not intervene on this matter as it is better suited for subject matter experts like the guys from WikiProject Puerto Rico.


 * If there's anything else that you would like me to clarify please let me know and I will gladly respond.


 * Hope this helps,


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR cannot override consensus. You have to see how obvious that is. If it could, then any time that anyone didn't like a discussion, even if the discussion was 100 to 1 against, with the 1 person just saying, "Well, it's better my way"...under your interpretation of WP:IAR, that person would be justified in changing it to their preference. Do you understand why that cannot cannot be the case? IAR allows you to override rules, or to make decisions where no rule is immediately apparent, but not to override consensus. By definition, what consensus decides is best for the encyclopedia is what is best for the encyclopedia (excepting that local consensus can't override site-wide policies).
 * At this point, I don't necessarily think I'll intervene, because it's clearly such a mess that it isn't worth my effort. However, your request for protection was absolutely unacceptable: you can never, under any circumstances, request protection to get your way in a content dispute. If I feel really motivated tomorrow, I'll take a look. In the mean time, please pursue [{WP:DR|dispute resolution]] with the other involved editors to figure out what to do next. Edit warring to get your way is not an option, and will result in someone blocking your account, no matter how "right" you think you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep all this discussion at the wikiproject, please. As far as that earlier merge discussion, it did only have four users, and this is a pretty high profile topic. That's why I started the RFC, and any comments belong there, not on a user talk page. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Council of Secretaries of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Simple majority and Advisory council


 * Thomas Rivera Schatz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Attorney and Legal advisor


 * Guillermo Somoza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Attorney


 * Henry Neumann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Sportsman


 * Legislative branch of the government of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ammendment


 * List of Secretaries of Corrections and Rehabilitation of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Jesús González


 * Neftalí Soto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Attorney


 * President of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Presiding officer


 * President of the Senate of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Presiding officer


 * Puerto Rico Department of State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to UCC


 * Puerto Rico Department of Treasury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Jones Act


 * Puerto Rico Governor's Advisory Board (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Advisor


 * Secretary of Labor and Human Resources of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Labor


 * Secretary of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Supplies


 * Secretary of the Senate of Puerto Rico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Supplies

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please keep importance as it is, unless you wish to engage in a discussion about it
You are downgrading the importance of TC articles which are either amongst the wettest TCs to impact the areas in question, or had their names retired. Please, engage in a discussion if you disagree with the article importance. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not interested in discussing this matter but I was changing them per WP:BEBOLD. Feel free to revert them if you disagree. Anyway, this matter is probably better to be discussed at WikiProject Puerto Rico. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be discussed on either page, and I understand the be bold mantra. I'd be highly reluctant to lower the importance of a storm which had its name retired due to its Puerto Rico or Caribbean impact.  This is the reason some of the articles you downgraded in importance had to be reverted.  Others in the TC project might be more systematic in their reversion.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that's fine with me. I'm not interested in having a discussion on this matter. Tropical cyclones are not a subject I'm interested in. I was doing a cleanup and tropical cyclones articles happened to be part of that cleanup. Hope that clears things up. Once again, feel free to revert them, I won't be reverting your reverts per WP:ONLYREVERT. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Jason Rees (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to know how you were doing it.Jason Rees (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks its always good to get some input from outside of the project.Jason Rees (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a project member, I personally agree with what you did, Ahnoneemoos. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Vacation nine 02:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration
Hi Ahnoneemoos, you recently removed a deletion tag from List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the article as it falls exactly under A10. If for some reason you think the list should be separate from the main article, you'll need to propose a WP:SPLIT on the article's talk page. Note, though, that such a suggestion should be rejected, because the main article is not too long, and thus the list is better placed on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy the deleted list to my Sanbox please. I made changes to it that I expect to incorporate. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem--one second. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's at User:Ahnoneemoos/List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you moved it back into mainspace. Please follow WP:SPLIT. As I said above, it is likely that such a split is either undesirable or unacceptable. The page itself is very small, there's no reason for a separate page. The table you created might be a bit overlarge, but that's fixable by removing the pics and/or other modifications. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are overstepping and abusing your powers as an Administrator. Please cease deleting my edits. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you want to split one article into two, you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page, let it run for a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks or more, depending on levels of participation), and see if consensus supports a split. There are a fairly narrow set of reasons for a split, especially for splitting a list, so you'll want to see if any of those apply prior to making the suggestion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you don't, please see WP:BEBOLD. I'm not splitting an article, I'm expanding a section that has intricate details that don't belong on the main article. This is acceptable, see First Lady of the United States. The Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration is similar to a foreign affairs ministry and it's important to detail its Directors, but not on its main article. This is clearly a WP:WITCHHUNT on your part and an abuse of powers on your Administrator priviledges. I politely advise you to back off and WP:LETITGO as this is not an area in which you are a subject matter expert nor it is a violation to Wikipedia's rules. If anything, you are the one that must open up a discussion since (1) I contested the speedy delete but you UNILATERALLY deleted it and (2) I marked the edits with new page. Please use merge to, and stop deleting my submission as they do NOT violate any rules. Please also stop witchunting me. Remember what your role is as an Administrator and how you should not overstep with their use. I will be reinstating the article per WP:IAR, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:COMMONSENSE, and WP:BEBOLD; if you delete it again or suspend my account I will escalate this further to WP:RFCC, you have been warned. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, you've thrown up a blue minefield, but failed to cite all of the relevant policies which show why your edit is wrong. WP:BOLD is fine, but when you're reverted (which is what I'm essentially doing by deleting/userfying), your responsibility is to discuss the matter. You can't unilaterally declare a split and then argue that it's up to others to argue for a merge--the split should have never occurred in the first place. You're reversing the standard burden by declaring yourself an expert, saying that the default should be to defer to you. Well, even if you are a subject matter expert, you seem to not be a Wikipedia policy expert—in particular, you seem to have some drastic problems with [{WP:CONSENSUS]] and WP:OWN. So that there is another set of eyes on the matter and you don't think I'm just unilaterally abusing my "powers", I'll place a speedy deletion tag on the article. Should it not be deleted under A10 (and I could see a reasonable admin making a different call), I'll figure out a procedurally correct way to proceed (RfC, AfD, or something else, I'm not sure). It's a bit irritating that your refusal to follow policy results in an excess of extra work on my behalf, but I'll go ahead and do it just to demonstrate an excessive amount of decorum. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As you can see below, I've decided to go directly to AfD. This will result in more eyes on the matter, gives you a chance to weigh in more directly, and ensures that the discussion that should have taken place before you moved it actually occurs. Please do weigh in there with your justification for this split. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Navbar with targets
Template:Navbar with targets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of Comptrollers of Puerto Rico
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Comptrollers of Puerto Rico, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. &#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 02:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Zaida "Cucusa" Hernández Torres
I have declined your speedy deletion, and instead fixed the redirect to point to the article's new title at Zaida Cucusa Hernández. There is a reason why WP:CSD is only for recently created redirects: where a title has been in use for some time, even if there are no internal links to it there may be external ones which would be broken if it is deleted. Redirects are cheap - they take up very little space - and the page view statistics show that this title does get a few hits. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mayors of Puerto Rico
Thanks for the message. I have reverted your edits as the edits diminished the quality of the artcile. If you wish, you are invited to discuss your edits at the article's talk page. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Talkback
Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Chief of Staff to the Governor of Puerto Rico
I have edited your article to clarify that the correct English translation to the somewhat regal "Secretario de la Gobernación" (so named by Gov. Hernández Colón, careless of the fact that in American democratic parlance the position of "Secretary" is reserved for heads of "Departments" and not an office as small as the Chief of Staff's) is Chief of Staff to the Governor and that he is not the equivalent to the Lieutenant Governor. Most state Governors DO NOT delegate the day-to-day oversight of government to their Lieutenant Governors, who sometimes don't run in tandem and may even be of the opposing party, but to their Chief of Staff. No Chief of Staff in the states or Puerto Rico are members of the National Lieutenant Governors Association, where PR is represented by the Secretary of State (in fact, both Pedro Vázquez and Kenneth McClintock have hosted NLGA conventions in PR). You've put a lot of effort into an otherwise very good article, which I suggest you rename.Pr4ever (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that it is better if we simply call him for what he is called in Puerto Rico since "Chief of Staff" should be translated to "Jefe de Estado Mayor"; see for the U.S. Army Chief of Staff. Furthermore, the article explained very clearly that the position is  similar  (not equivalent) to that of a chief of staff or a lieutenant governor of other nations.
 * You need to understand that the post of Lieutenant Governor is not exclusive to the United States and that in the U.S. it is not defined equally in all U.S. states. However, it helps to compare it to the position of Lieutenant Governor as defined by other U.S. states and as defined by other nations so that readers understand the intricacies of the position within Puerto Rico.
 * My advise would be to revert back your changes and issue an WP:RFC. I would also suggest that you bring this discussion to the article's talk page as I do not agree with your changes and will be forced to revert them back since I consider them to be incorrect. I would like to do this as WP:CIVIL as possible as I understand that you made these changes per WP:AGF and WP:BEBOLD, and per previous interactions that we have had I know that you have good intentions. We are just politely disagreeing on this matter.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the overly-regal term of "Secretario de la Gobernación" should not be translated as "Secretary of Government" but as "Chief of Staff", as per American tradition, I have revertted my own extensive edits in good faith while we discusss this matter. However, I have eliminated reference to the Chief of Staff as the equivalent to Puerto Rico's Lieutenant Governor, as the island's Secretary of States are widely accepted to fulfill that role, just as in the states of Arizona, Oregon and Wyoming, and no Chief of Staff has ever attempted to replace PR's Secretary of State in the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA), which Secretaries of State Pedro Vázquez and Kenneth McKlintock have actually hosted in PR, as recently as a year ago.Pr4ever (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, friend. I have posted an RfC on our behalf. I'm inclined to be persuaded on this matter if presented with a good and solid argument. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)