User talk:Attarparn/Archive 1

Continued talk from A.P.E. article
From the article Alejandro Peña Esclusa's Talk page


 * Rd232 wrote "geolocates to Miami (the capital of anti-Chavez Venezuelan ex-pat-land)" This suggests that you are indeed a chavista and that my suspicion that you work in Miraflores as a Cuban propagandist might not have been completely off the mark (wink wink). If you want to know who I am all you have to do is to look at my user page, mister. Lindorm (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that makes no sense at all; I think you're just treating attack as the best form of defence (and BTW it doesn't take a genius figure out I'm in the UK). FYI, I got the info from clicking "IP location" at the bottom of this page. However other IPs in that timeframe geolocate elsewhere, so maybe it was coincidence. (I only looked at one when I mentioned Miami above, I looked at the others to give you the link and found they're different.) Rd232 talk 21:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right about that, but what does that have to do with Miami being anti-Chavez? For you to mention that just reveals your prejudices for the world to gloat over. Lindorm (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, what, you don't know the significance of Miami? You must live a sheltered life. Rd232 talk 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What you call to "know the significance of Miami" is a revelation of just how prejudiced you are, because you are quite obviously not referring to the fact that Miami is one of the most international cities in the world, a city in which local TV has more world news than CNN. As for living a sheltered life, as you can read on my user page I am a geographer who has travelled a bit. You can easily find out online that I have lived and worked in many countries on several continents, from the richest to the poorest. And you? Lindorm (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS... I just find it hard to believe you don't have a clue of the importance of Miami for Cuban and Venezuelan communities. (Incidentally, "and you?" - I've done OK. Not exactly relevant though.) Rd232 talk 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what FFS means. As for "the importance of Miami..." that is a reflection of your prejudice. As a Swedish Geographer living in Miami, having studied Miami from a socio-political perspective (while active in a presidential campaign) I know quite a bit about prejudice and Miami, and your statements reveal quite a bit of ignorance IMHO. Since this is completely extraneous to this article I propose moving any further discussion to my talk page. Oh and BTW, the article is gradually becoming much better, thank you for your efforts. I just wish you would take criticism a little bit better ;-) Lindorm (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Place further debate here!

FFS? Google is your friend; see eg here as first result. "studied Miami from a socio-political perspective"? OK, though you seem more of a physical geographer. But that makes your ignorance of the city even less excusable.

Anyway, yes, the article is getting somewhere; I wish you'd tried harder to be more constructive in the beginning, the wholesale reversions didn't help, and the COIN/BLPN posts were unnecessary, but OK, collaboration in difficult circumstances is a learning curve. I hope you appreciate the slack I cut you in relation to WP:3RR; some people use it as a bludgeon against people they disagree with. Incidentally, on your user talk page I'll take a moment to opine that with the time spent researching Esclusa recently, it's surprisingly hard to find out who is a member of UnoAmerica (it claims 200 NGO members) and who funds it. It smells a bit funny to me.

PS On more helpful note, can you look at how I've done the references and follow that in terms of content and formatting, and/or look at WP:CITE; main thing is to have all the necessary info in the ref. Rd232 talk 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You use the FUCK word to me? Go to hell and don't come back. You are dead to me. Lindorm (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that remark of yours is far, far ruder than a passing use of the abbreviation FFS. You appear to be a strange person. Incidentally, "fuck", a word I didn't use, is a perfectly good Anglo-Germanic word with a long and venerable history. Rd232 talk 16:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that an apology? It seems ambivalent to me. Anyway, it is a word that is not used in USA. Except by really low life forms. Take a hint. If you want to be taken seriously you have to start by taking yourself seriously. Be a man (or a woman, if that's what you are). And stop being a boot-licker of dictators. There are people putting their lives on the line to save A.P.E., going on hunger strike, sewing up their mouths, while you are helping his oppressors. Sleep on it. Lindorm (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "it is a word that is not used in USA." - Wikipedia is international. In the UK, people ain't so damn sensitive. As for "helping his oppressors"? Er, I thought I was writing an NPOV Wikipedia entry. Rd232 talk 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a proposal for you. If you are unable to write an NPOV article, then either pay attention when someone, like me, tells you that it is potentially libelous or NNPOV, or just stay away from biographies of living persons, especially in sensitive cases like this. Above all, do not, I repeat do NOT, reinsert material that has already been flagged as NNPOV or even potentially libelous. Fair enough? Lindorm (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think we've established that one of us isn't listening. Could you at least make up your mind whether NPOV is good or bad? (clue: the policy is that way). Also, your position on legalities increasingly resembles that of someone who is either unable to understand WP:NLT or has a close enough personal connection to the subject not to care about the policy. Rd232 talk 01:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not listening, which leads me to be strengthened in my suspicion that you are a propagandist for the castro-chavista communist dictatorship. Also, the fact that you did not ask about the hunger strike or the sewing up of the mouth, something that would make any normal person who was unaware of it react, shows that you are either not normal, or you already knew about it and don't give a rat's ass. In either case you are clearly unsuitable to edit articles on Venezuela or Cuba, or on political prisoners or dissidents of Venezuela or Cuba. Lindorm (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not listening... riiiiight. As for your flights of fancy about me based on not asking you something... if anyone is unsuitable for editing these topics, it is an "anti-dictatorship activist" unable to contain his emotion about the topic for five minutes. Rd232 talk 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are for real, and not a paid propagandist for Castro and Chavez (which is what you come through as), then you had better take a good and long look at yourself in the mirror. You are then clearly unable to write texts from an NPOV. Read my lips, if you are not a propagandist, then you are incompetent. But I don't think you are, because it is hard to imagine how anyone could be that incompetent as to not be able to read a Talk page and understand plain English. Lindorm (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever makes you feel better. (Though your WP:NPOV/WP:POV terminological confusion is increasingly comical given how often I've explained this to you. Like I said, your emotional connection to the subject is palpable.) Rd232 talk 02:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "the subject"? Let me tell you what the subject is. It is THE TRUTH. It is Human Rights. It is Human Dignity. It is Christian Values. It is Justice. It is everything that creates a Civilization. And you are damned right that I have a strong emotional connection to those values. So strong that I am prepared to go to extremes to defend them. So tell me, are you an enemy of those values? Can you put your hand on the Bible and Swear by everything that is Holy that you are acting in good faith? If so, then do it as a man, and not hiding behind an alias, Rd232. Lindorm (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject is Alejandro Pena Esclusa (and more broadly the Chavez government); your responses further suggest that you simply do not understand the concept of Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), to the point where it's really really becoming an issue and you should go and read the policy. PS I'm an atheist and a member of Amnesty International, so while our values certainly overlap, they are not identical. PPS changing your username to further obscure your identity and then talking about "not hiding behind an alias" is a bit rich! PPPS Incidentally, I meant to answer your "you did not ask about the hunger strike or the sewing up of the mouth" concern. I didn't ask because I'm aware of that happening in Venezuela protests in the past, and if there was a direct connection with Esclusa you'd have said and added it to the article. Rd232 talk 09:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I change the username is because you made it an issue. But unlike you, who are anonymous, I openly declare who I am and what my blog is. I stand for my opinions like a man. As for the hunger strike, I haven't had time to put that in yet, but perhaps you can do that, being a member in "Amnesty International" and all. Or are you only defending leftist prisoners of conscience? Lindorm (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it an issue, I didn't even mention it - I mentioned the conclusion it helped me to draw. And you have not declared on Wikipedia who you are and what you blog about. You call this "stand[ing] for my opinions like a man"? I remain anonymous, incidentally, because I have a professional (academic) reputation, and I have no wish for my Wikipedia editing to cross paths with it. Anyway, if you have more (reliable) sources about Esclusa, bring them; I've pretty well trawled the 'net and increasingly find merely echoes of sources already used, plus crappy sources and rumour. Rd232 talk 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I see you've now given your name etc on your userpage - fair enough. Do consider the issues of WP:REALNAME, my concerns about anonymity might apply to you too (though less likely in your field). Rd232 talk 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be disingenuous, you saw that several days ago or how else could you look up personal details about my life? You don't have the privileges to snoop into user's identity here. Attarparn (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I found your blog in researching Pena Esclusa, which threw up your meditations on the issues you had with Italian Wikipedia about his article. This blog was obviously you (this account), and putting your name plus account name I found the company. Not rocket science, and I was careful not to reveal identifying information. Rd232 talk 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. demize (t · c) 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Friendly notice to make sure you are aware of the three revert rule, which would be relevant to your editing at A.P.E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The one who has violated that rule in spite of my warnings is Rd232. May I also remind you about the rule that one cannot slander a person in Wikipedia. BLP and all that. At any rate, the edit you did resolved the last issue of contention. Lindorm (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "one cannot slander a person in Wikipedia" - indeed one cannot, since slander is oral. "in spite of my warnings"? You threatened to breach 3RR regardless, and indeed did reach 5RR before I lost count; I don't remember anything directed at me on the matter. Rd232 talk 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any good faith effort on your part. Lindorm (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well normally when people say that I would try to engage them, but I've reached the point of not caring what you think, since you're evidently not really interested in collegial discussion. So I'm going to give up and limit dialogue to the essentials, namely specific article-related points on article talk pages. Unwatching this page. Bye. Rd232 talk 16:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just spotted this, I think I'll archive this now then since it has no longer any relevance. Attarparn (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)