User talk:Armando Navarro

CIA in List of United States military history events
I commented on this issue here: Talk:List_of_United_States_military_history_events I would suggest adding this information to: CIA sponsored regime change. Ikip (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Paris Peace Accords article
You recently added a section to this article. An anon deleted it. I considered reverting the deletion, but I noticed some apparent problems with the deleted material, so I did not revert. I've moved the material to a section on the article talk page, here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like I reverted you here for (by now) unknown reason from my side. I leave it to the Nixon historians to go over it after your reintroduction of this section/material. My apologies for shooting early without having a target.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunger
Hi Armando, let me explain my issues a bit further. First, I don't think you need that many sources to establish a single point. I might not have picked the best ones, but you don't need that many -- "reference bombing" an article is bad because it makes articles hard to maintain. In general there shouldn't be more than one reference per sentence, or at least per clause.

More importantly, a line like "1 person dies every second as a result of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths" is what I call gee-whizzery. It's purpose is not to give the reader information, but to make the reader say Gee whiz!!!. Material in an encyclopedia should not be written in such breathless language. Furthermore, statistics like "1 person dies every second" are also given to impress rather than inform. They don't actually mean anything: the proof is that if you get them badly wrong -- "1 person dies every 2 seconds" -- they don't look any less bad, even though that's only half the death rate. You could make up any number you want and nobody would know the difference.

Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob Crane
Please don't change any more links to this article. The page should not have been moved and a request has been made to return the article to its name. The Bob Crane article should have had a top link that redirects the reader to the page of the other person who is called Bob Crane instead of the creation of a disambiguation page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-art
Thank you for your note. I placed the template earlier in the day, before Johnbod shortened and condensed the overly complicated article...see the other comments of mine on the talk page, as to the other issue note bombing I see someone else (above) mentions an over abundance of unnecessary information in your notations. It's good to reference but there is no need to also supply the text, chapter and verse. The article is excellent so far by the way...Modernist (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to Monochrome painting. Concerning Monochrome painting your ref says anti-art can be monochrome paintings, it also - and to a large extent isn't anti-art, or political, but simply good and sometimes great painting! There is an awful lot of Art that is connected to Monochrome painting - from Ellsworth Kelly, Jules Olitski, Ad Reinhardt, Clifford Still, Richard Pousette-Dart, Kasimir Malevich and on and on. The POV tag was removed by me; I'm beginning to rethink it now, in the light of your recent edit. Modernist (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point and in a sense the beauty of what we do here. The concept of monochrome painting is at the very least complicated and not simply a reflection of any singular point of view. Olivier Mosset's monochromatic pictures are made from a very different basis and from a different intent than Brice Marden's monochromatic paintings were or Jasper Johns's monochrome paintings, as are any number of dozens of other important picture makers, Milton Resnick etc. and the list is long. If you feel this article needs another point of view as exemplified by this comment of yours - How can you talk about Rodchenko's monochromes and the incohérents' foreshadowing of it without mentionning anti-art once in the monochrome article ? I said - While Rodchenko intended his monochrome to be a dismantling of the typical assumptions of painting, Malevich saw his work as a concentration on them, a kind of meditation on art’s essence (“pure feeling”).

Then add another section about Rodchenko...But again they (proponents of Anti-Art) do not own the concept...Rodchenko was not anti-art by the way - he was redefining art, against outmoded concepts. His article reads as - Rodchenko was one of the most versatile Constructivist and Productivist artists to emerge after the Russian Revolution. Certainly he was an avant-garde creative force but that does not read like anti-art to me..Modernist (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-art and Beuys
Hi - I removed your link to Anti-art from the Joseph Beuys page. When you find a minute, maybe you could have a look at the talk page where I explain why. Kind regards Enki H. (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits re. "Anti-art"
I'm at a bit of a loss how to phrase this diplomatically. I have just had a look at your work over the day and it's a bit remarkable. You appear to be engaged in a contents disputes with at least modernist, DionysosProteus, Johnbod, Bus stop (and myself), all of which are productive, long-standing, knowledgeable editors of contemporary art related articles (not myself). You are putting backlinks to anti-art into all pages you feel are vaguely related to your viewpoint. You are putting a very significant amount of effort into this, but apparently the more you do, the less everybody seems convinced that there is merit to what you are writing. It seems to me that this has reached the level of disruptive editing (see WP:DISRUPTIVE), in the sense of insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view. Can I convince you that it would be best to stop editing for now and work out a consensus on the Talk:Anti-art page? Alternatively, I am afraid we are heading towards RFC, Mediation, ANI etc. and honestly, everybody's (and that includes you), everybody's time would be better spent. Editing should be fun.

With lots of understanding, kind regards Enki H. (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Armando, I think I've brought your contribution on the Incoherents around to the point where it works with the article. Key elements are: pointing out "deliberate opposition", and removing the claim that Dada copied from them. The real relationship is actually much more interesting. I have however reinstated my removal of the Rousseau and Marx section on Anti-art. You have reverted my edit without discussion. Please establish consensus on the Talk:Anti-art page. Thank you Enki H. (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Could I get your input?
Hey Armando, I was planning on making some significant changes to an article you seem to be heavily involved with: Covert U.S. regime change actions. If you'd like please hit me up on the article talk page and let me know your thoughts. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New AfD of article you have worked on
Please see Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Direct democracy theorists
Category:Direct democracy theorists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)