User talk:Catrachoparasiempre

January 2017
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Juan Orlando Hernández. Thank you. - GB fan 11:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Juan Orlando Hernández. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - GB fan 11:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:ALLEGED for our discussion of this word. - GB fan 11:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Juan Orlando Hernández. - GB fan 11:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Juan Orlando Hernández shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - GB fan 11:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Please dont threaten us with sockpuppets or you will be permanently banned. This isnt the way to achieve anything. Perhaps you could start translating the Hilda article from es. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that the political arena in Honduras causes controversy to the point of manipulation of media outlets, so this is nothing new. Honduras is regularly at the top of the corruption polls, as well as murder rate, and PNH followers manipulating public information sources is certainly par for the course. I have provided credible and logical citations, but it's clear that your political preference is more important than providing said information. Information scrubbing is an inherent trait of fascism which has been a symptom of the current political landscape under JOH. The truth will be told, no matter how much it paints your political party in its true light.
 * Not so, if we are talking politics I bitterly oppose JOH's attempt at re-election and his and his party's politics generally, and no less than you, I can assure you. But when I edit here I am a wikipedia editor first, we need to abide by wikipedia policies when covering politics and Honduras. I started the IHSS article yesterday and it needs expanding; Mario Zelaya is clearly notable enough for his own article, as is Tony Hernández. So don't whinge about information scrubbing, get on and write but in accrodance with our neutrality and BLP policies, getting yourself blocked wont help in the slightest. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And to add on. I saw this article the other day as I was investigating a username that had been flagged as potentially against our policy. I have never been to Honduras and do not know anything about the political climate there.  I am working off our policies here, most importantly the biographies of living persons policy.  This is the policy you are violating with these edits and it is taken very seriously here.  - GB fan 11:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If neutrality is the main goal, then the article needs to be revised. It contains a paragraph about Jaime Rosenthal and his recent relegation of being a narcotics trafficker. Although relevant, this has little or no overlap with the JOH article (aside from a quote he gave). Placing it in the JOH article strikes of political angle and agenda. If there is no slant in these articles, then credible sources are taken into account and the addition to the article should be made. The CIA's recognition of Hilda's appointment certainly seems to me like a credible source, and leaving it out (while leaving the Rosenthal article in) hints at an abject LACK of neutrality. There is more overlap with JOH into the Berta Caceres issue (even allegedly) than there is with Jaime Rosenthal, and there is no mention of that either. His sister DOES in fact hold this position, it IS in fact anti-constitutional, the Honduran president DOES in fact make this appointment, and an interview with Del Rincon (that provided a stringent denial from JOH) DID take place. These are undeniable facts, and relevant to his administration. Bill Clinton has been accused of sexual assault (but not convicted), however these allegations are present on his wiki page. How is this different? The difference is that higher profile pages are locked and edited to provide maximum relevant information...not SELECTIVE information that ignores solid truths that may paint the character in a poor light. If this were not the case, there would be a wiki tug-of-war that goes on daily between the Clinton supporters and their critics. But since proper UNBIASED arbitration is provided, all the verifiable information is presented. Can we say the same about the JOH article? I have no affinity for the PNH or the PLH of Honduras, as the corruption is rampant on both sides, however eliminating my additions (while I provide credible sources) rings of political agenda. If this were not the case, the (justified) article on Jaime Rosenthal (who resided on the opposition party to JOH) would not appear on JOH's page. Would you insert an article about JOH's attempt to run for a 2nd term or the approval of fraudulent contracts (while he was president of congress, placing HIM in the approval path) in the Jaime Rosenthal page? Is this your version of "neutrality"?


 * You need to express your views about the article on the article talk page. As the person who added the Rosenthal case I would suggest we need a great deal more detail, and not less, and for the moment avoid concentrating on his immediate family. We could, though, create a Hilda article, IMO she is likely notable in her own right, and then link. I certainly agree that we should mention Cárceres as well. Please do take these concerns to talk. And the ebst way to edit successfully is to not engage in edit warring and not threaten sockpuppets. I put a neutrality tag on the es version because it is too pro JOH, if you feel that is the case, expound your argument on the talk page and slap a neutrality tag on the article but dont be bitter. You are a new user and you have lots to learn. Would that I could get exactly what I want on articles where I am politically passionate, sometimes we cant. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)