User talk:Cerejota/Archive1

List of political parties in Puerto Rico
Dear cerejota, Could you please let me know how to edit the information contained in the PR-Party tag box that appears in the List of political parties in Puerto Rico page? The page is not in the "normal" wikipedia namespace, which is why I could not to find it and why I commented it out. Thanks, --colibri--

Request for help
Hi cerejota,im just writing you because i need your help in editing and make it look good two pages that i have in mind,the first one is the english version of yiye avila need some works,at the same time the spanish version too,i have in mind to translate the nicky cruz page from english to spanish,im requesting your help because two people are better than one,makes a work faster,and6 people are better than 2 of course,thanks for yoour help if it interest you of course,thank you --Teknomegisto 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

--In terrorem fidei defenso 13:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)I have a concern for people that delete others people contributions just because the source is not appealing to them or the information posted is not of their liking. This editors ask for verifiable sources and references when they do not post any one of them references; one has to take their information for granted and when somebody edits it, they just delet it for lack of "verifiable sources" How can this problem be taken care of?

Re. Tookie Williams: Are you upset when a murderer is executed, or just minorities who you feel are being "state murdered"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.10 (talk • contribs)

Whattcha talking about willis?--Cerejota 17:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias
(refering to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis)

We're probably on opposite sides of the matter. I'll disclose that I'm 100% pro-Israel. I just wanted to commend you on your civility and display of patience regarding the current events. Thank you for maintaining reason, while maintaining your convictions. --Elliskev 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We are indeed opposite in this matter. I also thank you for "maintaining reason, while maintaining your convictions". We must understand the role that wikipedia plays, and what this means. We all have places to vent our opinions, and to debate, but wikipedia's aim is not to be this. What we, coming from opposite sides, must attempt is to reach a neutral point of view that allows the facts to surfrace, which we can then use to learn and formulate our own opinions further.--Cerejota 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I think we're in agreement here. Fully. --Elliskev 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys, you're making me have faith in the Wikipedia and all that it stands for. Keep up the NPOV and the civility &mdash; regardless of differences of opinions &mdash; the rest of the world can learn a lesson from it. Nimur 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop it you making me blush! :P --Cerejota 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hellznrg accused me of "stealth vandalism" for reverting to its more or less original, consensus form the intro paragraph of the article. I stated the reasons for the edit both here in talk and in the comments of the edit. I ask user Hellznrg to retract and apologize for his uncivil behaivior, and to pleas ein the future read and discuss in the talk pages before doing such a major, and controversial, edit.--Cerejota 22:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"
 * The entire reason for the war was Hezbolla's wish to free the lebanese prisoners, foremost of them all Samir Kuntar. this is pretty much an undisputed fact. which is why this should be in the intro. you removed it even though it was quite NPOV and replaced it with some vague assertations about this and that... which is why i considered it "stealth vandalism" Shakespeare Monkey 09:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"I dream of a day when the State of Israel is susbtitued with a Palestine with jews, christians, muslism and druze living in peace, in a secular, democratic state, with separation of religion and state. I dream of a day when the same exists whenever theocracy rears it ugly head, like in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent, the USA. My political beliefs, hence stand in complete opposition of both Hezbollah and the Israeli state, and closer to that of the Israeli refuseniks and the Arab secularists."
 * OIC.. sorta like in pakistan? or in palestine (PLO mobs running around slaughtering all non-moslems)? or perhaps in pretty much all arab & moslem countries where all non-moslem minorities are marginalized and discriminated against? or perhaps you mean driving out people from their places of worship and converting them into mosques (happens all the time)...? PS: myself, i'm a strong atheist and dislike all religions but i have a special kind of hate for islam because it's a destructive religion that threatens to be the downfall of humanity Shakespeare Monkey 10:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image
Your objections are without base. The image is not in violation of NPOV, or any rule. Take a gander at Battle of France. The picture isnt of combat, far from it. The picture doesnt contain both sides. The picture is staged. But its NPOV, its an event, it happened. Take a gander at Battle of Berlin. The picture isnt of combat, far from it. The picture doesnt contain both sides. The picture is staged. But its NPOV, its an event, it happened.

These two things, Hitler in Paris, Soviet flag in Berlin, are still the best picture available in my oppinion. It is not at all a violation of NPOV to show them, and it is not one to show the Israeli soldiers on a ship, that is a silly claim. A claim with more base is that its not the best picture for the job, I entirely agree. There are amazing pictures out there of dust flying from artillery being shot, the dust blocks the sun and creates a really cool look. I think that has been the iconic image, for me, of this (and Operation Summer Rains for that matter.) Its been a common scene, and is how most combat is played out. Another great image would be of Hezbollah firing Katyusha rockets. But the problem is that we do not have any images of these that are free, or fair use. So far we have 2 images to choose from, a low quality black and white explosion, or the blockade. The blockade is by far the better image. Its not the best out there, but its the best we have. The map should not go at the top, it is better suited in the context of the conflict section, much like other wars or combats in which images are available. Maps in the infobox are a last resort, something we luckilly do not need to resort to. I am still looking for better images, I was the one who found the explosion to begin with, along with the one who originally replaced it. If you can find a free image of artillery fire or katyusha fire of sufficient size, that would be simply grand. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rangley, others have said and I agree: you have displayed a lack of good faith and have an attitude. For example, you seem to have misread me.


 * In my original message I argued not about NPOV, which is next to impossible to achieve in a picture (unless we do a composite which is ugly), but for newsworthyness. My message is there for all to read. What I didn't like about the 3 binocular picture is that it is a propaganda picture with no news value at all, besides being bland and boring. Its three guys with binos, nothing special. Now the current picture with the IDF artillery piece its a better one, but I hope we can find something more human, or that conveys the human aspect of warfare better. That is my sole arguement, and you are setting a strawman by arguing against something I havent argued for.--Cerejota 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I always assume that people intend to be helpful (unless its blatantly obvious they arent) and have always been under the assumption that you are acting with good intentions. But I do not beleive your removal was constructive. As the the "Learn to read" comment, sorry if I misunderstood what you said. It is likely that I confused your argument with anothers, as there are quite a few discussions going on about quite a range of topics. But yeah, I will get on them there reading skills. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the picture, I reverted to an earlier version with the map. There is a difference, as the map was consensus driven while the 3 binocular picture was not. Nevertheless is a moot point because the howitzer picture is a better picture than either two.--Cerejota 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You removed the picture by reverting it... ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I tell you, no good faith.--Cerejota 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, your comment implying I cant read was not in good faith. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No it was a simple observation of fact. You said I was arguing something I was not. Ergo, you didn't read. Simple. You display a lack of good faith and then expect it form others? Notice how you havent apologized and appear unrepentant for misrepresenting my views.--Cerejota 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually said "As the the "Learn to read" comment, sorry if I misunderstood what you said. It is likely that I confused your argument with anothers, as there are quite a few discussions going on about quite a range of topics." ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is posibility and I apologize for reacting harshly.--Cerejota 21:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its fine, tensions are high on all sides about this article. Surprising how different the overall attitude is compared to Operation Summer Rains, which was actually fun to work on. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I voted for merge and you for delete hehehehe--Cerejota 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah source
Hello, Could you please readd the BBC sourcing for the Hezbollah background? The passages in quotation marks are quotations from that page, and not original research. While the link is broken now, we are supposed to maintain the citation. If you manage to find another URL for the page, feel free to add that. Thank you,  Tewfik Talk 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the problem is that the BBC's article is POV, as it provides no sources. A citation to a bad source is not a good citation. The BBC's "What is Hezbollah?" is one of the worse examples of this. If used in the article then perhaps we should cite it like the DebkaFile is cited, not as an authoritative source but as an opinion.--Cerejota 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBC piece is a news article, and as such, is considered a reliable source. It is thus a good citation, even if it, like all news sources, has some POV. Another issue is that we agreed in talk to replace captured with abducted; please read the discussion, and if you disagree, explain why on talk, and we can come to another decision if necessary. Thanks,  Tewfik Talk 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
Can you please discuss on Talk what passages are disputed and merit the tag? Thanks Tewfik Talk 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * if you read the discussion, you will see the specifics raised by me and others. The concerns have not been addressed.--Cerejota 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What specific issues do you have with the article? (please respond on either my talk or the page's talk - thanks)  Tewfik Talk 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer to have discussions on particular articles in their talk page. I feel it is bad form to other involved in the discussion to have discussions on things that concern them outside of where this dicussions are meant to be had.--Cerejota 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns on Talk.  Tewfik Talk 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on the definition of Vandalism. Removing disputed article tags is not vandalism, it is a content dispute, and continuing to falsely accuse other editors of vandalism is a violation of etiquette and may lead to being blocked. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and good-faith editors really do not appreciate being called vandals. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this and is on purpose. I cannot understand how people without discussion continualy edit.--Cerejota 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

cooperation
salam

I think we are interested in Sa.vakilian 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to edit a page, do it yourself. I dont think the picture is relevant as it is in the main Hezbollah article.--Cerejota 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Debkafile
Hi. Please stop inserting "Pro-Israeli" in front of Debkafile. This is WP:OR. Whether it is Pro-Israeli or not is not for you to determine. If you do it again, I will be forced to report you for violating this important policy, and for borderline vandalism. Thank you. Bibigon 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Please if you have something to say about editing a page, do it in the talk page of the page in question, for all editors to see.


 * 2) Your threat goes against "assume good faith".


 * --Cerejota 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are in violation of WP:AAGF. -- Cyde↔Weys 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * me? why? it was he who threatened me!--Cerejota 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you even read what I linked you to? It should all be incredibly evident. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha--Cerejota 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad edit
Thanks for fixing it. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * sure!--Cerejota 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "chastising"
Hello Cerejota,

While I assume you have only the best intentions in mind, over the last few days you have accused me of vandalism, of not assuming good faith, of editing without consensus, of reverting your edits, and you have inferred that I am doing the above to push a POV. I have chosen to ignore most of this in the hopes that you would gradually cease as you gained more experience; I recall how difficult it was to be new in the fastpaced world of the 'pedia (and I still am relatively new), while always being vigilant that NPOV and all of the other important guidelines were preserved. If you ever have an issue with me, or another 'pedian, please address the issue directly, and do not resort to some of the afforementioned behaviour. It will not lead to any productive discourse.

In the hope of avoiding a drawn-out discussion on this topic, I have compiled the difs that I referenced above. I hope that we can leave all this behind and return to improving the encyclopedia. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * POV pushing inferred: "Is it perhaps your own agreement with the POV being pushed?" - Cerejota 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * POV pushing inferred: "That you seem to agree with it opinion doesnt change this" - Cerejota 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * POV pushing inferred/bad faith inference: "Please do not continue to edit and revert without discussion, disregarding views not your own, as you have done several times in the last day. Also, please realize that for the last 5 days many editors, from both sides of the POV, have attempted in good faith to achieve a consensus to reach great level of NPOV, which at times we have been able to achive until others (like you) arrive disregard the previous discussions and start editing from perspective we had already thought achieved. Please join us, rather than abitrarily edit." - Cerejota 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (The Removal of POV CHECK tag section did not have a consensus for keeping it. Moreover, POV check states that anyone can remove the tag if they feel the issue to be resolved, which I did. It recommends as recourse for the poster an NPOV tag and a formal fleshing out of the issues. While I attempted to initiate such a fleshing out (without NPOV tag), you did not choose to deal directly with my reply to your points, citing previous (and I believe, resolved) discussions (which is why I wanted to know what nuance you still saw).)


 * vandalism: "I notice the POV check is being vandalised by being removed..." Cerejota 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * no consensus/vandal: "Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes... - Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * unwaranted reversion/lack of good faith: "Now Tewfik, this is not true. I have engaged in discussion, civil discussion, and you have continually reverted my changes. Others with a different POV from me have commended me on my civility and willingness to compromise. Perhaps you should never give up conversing, as when good faith is assumed wonders happen." - Cerejota 16:34, 18 July 2006
 * (This edit after I sought counsel on Cyde's talk. I should note that I did not give up conversing. Until this point, I had made the last overture. The only reversions of your edits that I recall were my removal of the POV check tag per a consenus on talk (which you responded to later) and my conversion of "capture" to "abduct," per what was consensus at the time.)


 * "While I assume you have only the best intentions in mind, over the last few days you have accused me of vandalism, of not assuming good faith, of editing without consensus, of reverting your edits, and you have inferred that I am doing the above to push a POV."


 * All of these things where a result of you accusing me of the same.


 * "I have chosen to ignore most of this in the hopes that you would gradually cease as you gained more experience"


 * That you have taken time to compile a list clearly shows that you have not chosen to ignore it, but rather keep at it, and keep at it, and keep at it... I have no time for this, sorry... --Cerejota 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your statement on my talk accusing me of harassing you, I can only note again that my statement above was in response to a number of your statements accusing me of various breaches of policy, including on my Talk, to which it was a direct response. Being that the above is one of two responses that I've made on the subject, I stand by my statement that I have mostly ignored the offences (though I would be well within my rights not to ignore them), and I question what "harassment" I have subjected you to. Like you, I don't have time for this, and I repeat my wish to leave this all alone, dependent of course on your ceasing to make baseless accusations about my behaviour, as you've done again above:

("While I assume you have only the best intentions in mind, over the last few days you have accused me of vandalism, of not assuming good faith, of editing without consensus, of reverting your edits, and you have inferred that I am doing the above to push a POV."
 * All of these things where a result of you accusing me of the same. ) (note: even if this assertion was true, which I strongly deny, you must know that two wrongs a right do not make)

Again, just stop - our energies are much better spent on editing than dealing with this. I really hope this ends now.  Tewfik Talk 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

a problem in the article
Hi

There is few quotations and viewpoints of Lebanese in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. --Sa.vakilian 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous prisoners exchange clause
Hi there,

my edit of the clause has hold for a couple of days (the fact that was making me proud) :) Actually, I know that Wiki is not RS, however, I can't see a point in providing a link to every five words. A link should be provided for the stuff that is disputed, and I can't see such stuff in any of the info that I provided there. All of this is pretty "well known" and RS can be found to back up any statement of these.

Cheers and thanks for your contributions to the article. Efip 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The real nomber of casualties
Hi. Please see the Israel-Lebanon conflict talk page.--Sa.vakilian 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

sprotect tag
Hello Cerejota,

I agree that the page should be sprotected, but the last two attempts that I made were rejected. The tag is supposed to be placed after a page is protected, but by itself it does nothing. The proper procedure is to post at Requests for page protection. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What, you and I agree? Are you sure? :D--Cerejota 06:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Casualties
The sourcing does not say that the 330 are civilians. I really want to work together with you, but edits like "Can't defend sourcing only when it fits your viewpoint, you know?" are really unproductive. Please stop making those types of statements, and we can accomplish so much more.  Tewfik Talk 06:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the message in question in your talk page, the concern Gabriel raised was not over the number, but if in fact these casualties where civilians, which sources do establish as such. I also want to work towards a more productive article, but please stop this tendency to misrepresent the discusions. You have done it before, and its annoying.--Cerejota 07:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't raise concern over the number - that just happens to be the number in the citations and which was in the box before I touched it. The point I made is that the number (in this case 330) is not qualified by civilians, but is rather a cumulative number which includes the civilians as well as others (militants, etc.). Calm down. I'm really not out to get you, or to covertly sabotage the page when you are not looking =D. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 07:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I cool as a cucumber. I just dont like my views misrepresented, and reserve the right to correct said misrepresentations.--Cerejota 07:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent your views. I'm not sure how what I wrote above could be any clearer, though I have in the past misread things, and so the possibility may exist for you as well. In any event, I have also addressed the issue above. Read the source. It mentions numbers twice, and neither time does it qualify them with civilians.  Tewfik Talk 07:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First I didnt allude to that specific source, but the various sources. Second Gabriel, to whom I was responding, didnt allude directly to numbers, but to the qualification of the casualties as civilians. You see? I cared not, and never mentioned, any figures, but only addressed the speculation around the figures not really being only about civilians.--Cerejota 07:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said you chellenged/changed/did amything to the numbers. I just mentioned the number in the article. You are misunderstanding my comments. The only point I made was that the sources cited did not tie the number (which was used in the casualties section) to civilians, but rather kept it unqualified.  Tewfik Talk 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias and removal of sourced content
Please avoid bias and removal of sourced content (which is vandalism) as in this edit: Zeq 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ar you accusing me? I have avoided bias, and have removed sourced content only with explanations and when it is irrelevant to the page or section. Content must not be only realiably and verifiably sourced, but also relevant. Also, NPOV requires that wording be balanced and neutral, even if sourced. If you care to provide a specific example of where have I enged in vandalism, I will be happy to discuss it. --Cerejota 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Declaring" war
Do states even declare war anymore? I don't believe the US has declared war since WWII. The Iraq War is both undeclared and ongoing. Oz Lawyer  16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This point has been raised time and again. While the definition of war has changed over the years, and wars seem no longer to be formaly declared, it is a matter of semantics. From the perspective of wikipedia, a substantial comparison with a number of WP:RS sources should give us an idea on what to name conflicts. Also, the self-description of the side in combat is important. In the case of the Iraq War, the US calls it a war, and even if not officially declared in the same manner as WWII, it was authorized by congress, and continues to be funded by it. So it is a war. Now, the present Israel-Lebanon conflict is a conflict because neither side calls it a war, nor do sources in general call it a war. I think wikipedia as an encyclopedia should follow that criteria, rather than a debate on what constitute war and what doesnt.--Cerejota 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

removal of source content and bias
bias is very bad for this encyclopdia. removal of sourced neutral facts is vandalism. you should edit according to policy. Zeq 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You apparently don't know what you are talking about. Read WP:Vandalism. As others have explained to you dozens of times in many talk pages and other places, a fact not only must be sourced, but it must be both relevant to the information at hand, and presented in a balanced NPOV voice. The edits I have moved, removed, rewritten, and reverted have all been for not meeting that set criteria. Also in the case of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, there are a number of subpages to which relevant material must be moved. So even material that meets the criteria for sourcing, NPOV, etc, might get deleted by me simply because it belongs in a different page.


 * I again ask you to stop your unfounded accusations of vandalism, or provide specific examples of vandalism rather than blanket accusations.--Cerejota 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Rockets in intro
The Hezbollah rockets are an extremely important part of what is going on. Please do not remove their mention from the introduction.  Tewfik Talk 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course they are, but they came as a counter response, not as part of the initial attacks. As such it belongs in Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict not the main article. Its an issue of trying to find a compromise between a short quick intro and getting the facts out there. What has happened is that putting this in the intro leads other people to put more stuff they feel balances the article, which in turn leads to more additions, and we end up with the whole article in the intro. It ridiculous beyond measure. So please think a little about what you are doing, which is in essence adding kindling to the fire by putting an item the belongs elswhere in the article or even a different page, in the intro.--Cerejota 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They are a key part of the hostilities, among the major aspects covered in the media, and part of Israel stated reasoning for continuing the bombing. Please stop removing it.  Tewfik Talk 23:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, as it is in a super-summarised form at 2 lines, the space issue is nonexistent here.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 23:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you are happy. As I predicted, the inclusion (as separate section) in the main page of "Hezbollah rocket attacks" instead than in Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, has lead to further deterioration of the quality an NPOV of the page. Instead of being the useful and informative jumping point to facts about the conflict, it has become a battlefield of both sides of the POV competing to see which facts support them. If you dont like this situation, please join me to get make this and the other pages to be good pages rather than the disasters they are now.--Cerejota 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cerejota, I'm not sure which battles you are specifically referring to, but generally a fleshing out from both sides until a neutrality emerges is a good thing. If you see some specific glaring POV, fix it and/or let me know, and we can act accordingly then. Regarding the rocket issue, it is an extremely important part of what is going on, and is related to Israel's conditions for withdrawal. I'm not sure if you could even find a mainstream piece of reporting that does not mention it's importance. Happy editing,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Warring 2006 Arab-Isreal Conflict
Please note that I have put a comment on the talk page. I'm not taking anyone side, but am sick of seeing the edit war. The page has already been semi-protected. If this edit war continues I will ask an admin for full protection of the page. You guys need to discuss stuff on the talk page and start following the rules of Wikipedia. Davidpdx 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow
You are one bored antisemite my friend (sigh). Have you got nothing better to do other than try to edit the Israel-Lebanon article to fit your personal views??? Maybe you should start a blog to express your opinions, rather than edit an encyclopedia. Get a life. Tweekerd 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or maybe his opinion is just a bit different? Please don't start with the accusations, but with trying to find out what were the reasons for another Wikipedian's edits. By the way, I am Israeli and Jewish, so if I would have been biased in any way, I would have been biased in your side. Assume good faith :] Tamuz (Talk) 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:Civil; WP:No personal attacks
Please don't make such edits as: You might think they lie, but thats your POV: to any rational person they meet WP:RS. or NPOV manages to emerge only to be pushed down by people like you, who simply dont get it. You can convey the same ideas without being uncivil or bordering on ad hominem.

As an aside, I also wish you would cease your unfounded claims of my supposed harassment, and that you would stop making broad statements about my supposed POV edits. I again say that if you have a problem with any specific edit I make, then provide a dif and we can deal with it. Again, please stop.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 15:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats it tewfik, am fed up with your constant harrasment.


 * lets get some dispute resolution going... I cannot handle your constant preocupation with my actions that borders on stalking.


 * I am very civil and have been commended for my civility and balance by people on all sides of the POV, and I just recently gave a barnstar to an Israeli reservist for a great NPOV edit.


 * It seems you are the only person worried about what I do or say. You continue to harras me on my talk page in spite of my multiple requests to the contrary, and instead of discussing the specific concerns in the talk page of the article, where specific things are pointed out, you try to make it personal. --Cerejota 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As per policy, I have raised a request for informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota--Cerejota 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Informal Mediation
I have chosen to mediate your request. The link is here Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24_Tewfik_harrassment_of_Cerejota. When both users have signed up, we can begin. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Process is important
Just out of curiosity, what was your reasoning behind putting a quote about how Wikipedia is not all about process, at the essay talking about how important process is? Seems counter-productive, and maybe designed to undercut the essay with an appeal to authority. But maybe you can shed light on this for me... for right now, I've removed your inclusion. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * please, lets discuss in the relevant talk page, not here. this is a conversation worth having where the entire community can hear us, not use on a user's talk page. In any case, thanks for the headsup, but my watchlist is as good as yours ;-)--Cerejota 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, see you there then (since I'd already started a separate sidechat on Kim Bruning's talk page, on a semi-related issue). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What should be in the intro to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Hi Cerejota. I totally agree with you that we need to keep the intro short. However, as events evolve, some developments need to be included in the intro, while some of the details included in the early days of the conflict may be removed from it. For example, by now (26 July), I think that the heaving bombing of civilian areas as well as yesterday's shelling and killing of the four UN observers are much more important things, as they are quickly changing the position of a number of countries, than such irrelevant things like the names of the Hezbollah and Israeli operations (which are repeated further down anyway). Yes, I know that the Israelis think that even mentioning the bombings is POV, but it is possible to include them in the intro in a NPOV way. Don't you agree? Thomas Blomberg 10:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * please, lets discuss in the relevant talk page, not here. this is a conversation worth having where the entire community can hear us, not use on a user's talk page.--Cerejota 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, read WP:LEAD--Cerejota 14:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico FAC!!
Be sure to support the FAC of Puerto Rico! Hezzy 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I think you have violated 3RR at the Seattle story. Please review WP:3RR. Any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. If you have violated it, please take the opportunity to revert yourself. Many thanks, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not. As per WP:3RR:


 * "Reverting without edit warring


 * As the purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it should not be taken to apply in cases where it is clear that no edit warring has taken place. For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert. Likewise, if there are intervening edits but they are clearly unrelated or non-contentious, such as a bot adding an interwiki link to a foreign language version of the page, this does not increase the 'revert count'."


 * When I realized that indeed there was an edit war, I stopped and placed a NPOV tag in the section in question. NPOV tag is placing additional content, and proceed to engage in discussion in talk, not removing it. Now I ask you, as is my policy, to discuss things in the talk paghe they belong, not my talk page. I understand that policy requieres you inform me in my talk page, and I thank you for it, but lets move it now where it is relevant.--Cerejota 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you reverted my work more than three times. Therefore, you violated 3RR. When I offered you the opportunity to revert yourself, instead of acknowledging 3RR and reverting yourself, you continued to argue. Therefore, if you revert anything on that page again, you will be reported. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I told user to report me, as I feel I havent violated WP:3RR.--Cerejota 09:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Cerejota,

You recently posted the following remark on my talk page:

"May it be noted that the Mediation Cabal has ruled for a compromise inclusion of the said links in the article (which the Denis Diderot opposed)."

Has the Mediation Cabal begun to issue rulings now? And why this strange phrase "the Denis Diderot opposed"? Why not simply "you opposed"?

Perhaps you could find the time to explain?--Denis Diderot 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

what needs explaining?--Cerejota 09:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked four questions above. The questions are all followed by question marks ('?'). In the fourth question I ask for an explanation. The first three questions describe what I'd like to be explained. I'm sorry if it was a bit unclear.--Denis Diderot 09:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1) i used ruled as a layman's term.

2-3) a typo, I actually originally wrote "the user" but changed to your name and left the "the"

now, why the curiosity, may I ask?--Cerejota 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't undestand what you were trying to say. It didn't make sense to me. That's why I asked. Thank you for taking the time to sort things out. Unfortunately I still don't understand. (I hope you don't think I'm stupid.) Why "the user opposed" instead of "you opposed"? But this is a minor grammatical issue that we shouldn't worry about. (It's just that the phrase "the Denis Diderot" added to my original confusion.) The important question concerns "ruled as a layman's term". What does this mean? What has the Mediation Cabal done, and why is it using you as its messenger? Sorry for all these questions, but it seems to me that you wouldn't leave a message on my talk page unless it was something important. And what's the point of leaving a message if it isn't understood? --Denis Diderot 09:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Avalona
User Avalon, probably a sock puppet, has just made a bunch of edits to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict page, removing many quotes from artiles and information and references. Unfortuantely this user has done this interspersed with other edits. Not sure what should be done, but I'll try reverting some of it.--Paraphelion 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is sockpuppet or not, but the edits seem bad. ANd seems to be ongoing. I would post a warning in talk and ask for admin help. Sprotect or something. If not it becomes a war.--Cerejota 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I've been looking through and not all of this user's edits are terrible, such as this one :, but that's about the best one I could find. I'm not sure what kind of warning to put on a talk page; I haven't done that before. I've seen the ones for vandalism, but this isn't outright vandalism. Thanks for the help by the way!--Paraphelion 09:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think its a sockpuppet BTW, read WP:SOCK--Cerejota 09:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry
Sorry for assuming bad faith by questioning your assumption of good faith. I had just entered in on the discussion and didn't have any background to work with, so I might have sounded a little unfair. Sorry. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * no problem...--Cerejota 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good statement!
I just want to express my admiration for your statement in [Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. It is very well put and mirrors my views precisely. Unfortunately, most articles dealing with the Middle East seem to be a battleground for Zionists and Islamists, with the revisionst Zionists dominating, so bringing balance into the picture is extremely difficult. Let's just hope that the few of us who try will have the stamina to continue, when faced with constant reverts. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 15:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Hi, you were listed as a proponant in Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but have not yet made any statement in support, or oposition, of anything being discussed there. Would you like to write a statement? --Barberio 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did do a statement:


 * I was included without being asked as a "Pro" user. While I am for the inclusion of the picture links, but I dont think their continued deletion constitutes "censorship" in a way that implies I question the bad faith of the removing editors: I think it constitutes an edit dispute thats is turning to an edit war. --Cerejota 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have little to offer additionally than what the moderator has already addressed.--Cerejota 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, if you know how to take this to the next step, please specify at the lastest at the mediation page. AdamKesher 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Board candidacy question
Hi! I've read your statement for the election, and I have a few questions for you. Jon Harald Søby 11:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you a serious candidate? And if so, do you expect getting any votes? Not to be harsh, but with things like this on your userpage, as well as your reason for running ("it would be ultra freaking cool to be a voice of my fellow editors"), I'd say your race is run before it's even started. Being on the board of Wikimedia is a serious matter, and not something to be taken lightly.
 * 2) What do you mean by "Bring diversity to the Board, english speakers are sometimes from countries who speak other languages"? You do realize that the Wikimedia Foundation aims to be a fully multilingual organization with projects in more than 200 languages, and that speaking English is no requisite for being on the Board?


 * I fully second these questions. -- Zanimum 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the sense that I will take the responsibilities and tasks of the position seriously, as I do other volunteer engagements, both current and past, in my life. But one thing that does make me different formt he usual candidates is that I do not confuse this seriousness of task with a seirousness of personality. After all, wikis are fun. We must have fun. And fun can be had, in all seriousness, with all seriousness.
 * Presisely because I understand this fact behind the Wikimedia Foundation is because I raise that point. To date, the geogrpahical diversity of the board has been lacking. As a Puerto Rican raised in Puerto Rico by a mixed set of parents, I am keenly aware of the divide between the global south and the global north and live between the two cultures, such perspective I belive would be an asset.


 * Now, this might seem shocking to you, but it at least elicited a reaction which can elicit a dialogue, and if this dialogue leads to your supporting a candidate who supports my views, or better, leads you to support me, then I think I would reach my objectives.--Cerejota 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. My first barnstar ever! :) --Iorek85 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cerejota
Be informed that your account in Opera is a mess.


 * get firefox :D--Cerejota 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cerejota 01
is your real name Carlos Rivera and was you one of the Kids Of Survival from the Tim Rollins Projekt "Temptation of Saint Antony"? If it is so, I will elect you, because I am a great fan of your art projekt from 1990. Tell me. --88.134.78.135 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not me... Carlos Rivera is quite a common name in Latin America in particular the Caribbean and Puerto Rico. In any case, I do hope you vote for me for other reasons, such as my platform, pet advocacies and of course my great sense of humor and dry wit... not to mention humility :D--Cerejota 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminship views
In your candidate statement you said that you will 'Advocate that a successful, peer-reviwed membership period in the Moderation Cabal be a pre-requisite for adminship'. Could you clarify whether you mean to encourage users to consider this in RFA, or encourage the Foundation to make this a formal requirement for adminship (of the kind that we currently have zero at the moment). Thanks. Cynical 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for such a tough provoking question. I jhope this process continues like this for all candidates.

I chose my words carefully: I said very purposely advocate rather than seek or any stronger word. While I belive in the community-involved RFA process, I belive also that one of its biggest flaws is that unlike other processes in Wikipedias, where verifiability plays a huge role, the RFA is too much of a "from the gut" response, with a lack of clear, verifiable criteria for objective and neutral editors to be influenced by in voting. This leads to voting being a popularity contest at bet and a self-electing clique process at best.

Adminship is a badge of honor, no soubt, but it carries with it commitment, responsibility, and sheer work, of the boring, menial kind, directed at producing a quality encyclopedia. Hence, a proven, verifiable track record, not just of editing and popularity as it is now, but also of ability to remain cool under pressure and perform menial boring tasks, can only help to develop even further the strengths of the current admin body, while allowing it to expand qualitatively and not just quantitatively.

A lot of RFA's end up being self-electing cliques (contrary to a stated goal of wikipedia against cabals and cliques), or sheer vanity circuses.

I am very open to other suggestions on how to solve these problems, but I think a requirement of actively serving, with a general consensus view of a positive grade, in some project like the Moderation Cabal, or the Neutrality Project, or Esperanza or whatever, will help mitigate the impact of "from the gut" noms and provide, in a positive, community-involving way the disarming of the growing challenge of the cabal and clique issue.--Cerejota 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, that clears things up. Cynical 13:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

About pre-requisites for adminship, what do you think about the idea that adminship should not be a big deal? Why not let anyone with 500 edits become an admin and then simply remove admin powers if they are abused? --JWSchmidt 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Election for the Board of Trustees-Candidate
It's all OK, but I must say, nearly all is only seen with the eyes of an en:wiki-User. But the board is for alle Projects in all languages and countries. A little bit more about the whole thing would be nice. Not only the english view. Kenwilliams 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ich stimme zu... einer meiner punkte ist genau die anhaltende unterstutzung und die expansion das nicht-englischen wikis... Ich schlug ein "Wikibabel" für das Füllen des Abstandes zwischen Sprachen und Kulturen vor. Damit kannst du sehen, dass ich zustimme. Ich entschuldige mich, da mein deutschsprache schlechter als deine englischesprache ist. :D--Cerejota 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I don't think so, that your german could be more worst than my english ;) Kenwilliams 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hola, mi usuario es Taichi, tal vez no me conozcas, pero soy administrador de Meta y de la Wikipedia en Español, el Wikcionario en Español y la pequeña Wikipedia en Ladino. He leído los perfiles de los candidatos y me ha sorprendido tu candidatura, primero porque a pesar de ser un usuario de la en.wiki, eres hispano, provienes de Puerto Rico y hablas nativamente el español. Algo que curiosamente observé fue que decías que contribuías en la Wikipedia en Español, pero lastimosamente no hallé tu nombre de usuario en dicha Wikipedia. Sería bastante interesante conocerte, más para los usuarios en Wikipedia en Español en saber más a fondo tu proyectiva como aspirante a Miembro de la Fundación. Tal vez de la comunidad hispana de es.wikipedia y sus proyectos hermanos podamos tener al fin a un vocero que pueda representarnos, ojalá puedas responderme y si deseas presentarte ante la comunidad en Wikipedia:Café, creo que sería crucial tu presentación. --Taichi 08:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Software platform

 * "Help with the outreach and evangelism of Wiki as a software platform, regardless if they are projects of the foundation itself or not, yet of course with a focus around the Foundation's projects."

What does this mean? MediaWiki is already freely distributed and quite popular. Plenty of people use the toolservers in addition to various small tools acessing and manipulating Wikipedia content (think edit counters or bots) and our content is (as all know) widely replicated. It would seem we are already a software platform. What more could feasibly be done? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Evangilize its use, create a prize for creative uses of WIkis, etc etc etc. As the RoR (yuck) do show, a platform needs a dedicated marketing effort to popularize its use.--Cerejota 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * RoR being Ruby on Rails?


 * Yes --Cerejota 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, it is quite laudable to spread the use of wikis- absurd to think that all that could be done with wiki software is being done - but why exactly should the Wikimedia Foundation in particular help out? Do we need the innovative ideas? New code? More people using wikis? What is in it for us? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 01:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I belive one of the things that emerges from my plaform is a need to leverage the impact of the Wikipedia Foundation has, into a Foundation that besides having as it goal the mantainance and popularization of specific projects, can also become a driving force in establishing the wiki model of collaboration, the wikipedia model of self-regulation, and the abbility to cross language barriers.


 * Coming from a background heavy with NGOs and non-profit organizations, and I think the Wikipedia Foundation has not to date fully realized its potential as one, at all levels, from funding to lobbying to outreach. It has potential, we must take it to the next step.


 * Engaging in strong leadership from the perspective of wikis and the wikiway of doing things, has a lot to offer to the bottom line (ie existing projects) and to the world at large:


 * Establish clear leadership - Makes the Wikipedia Foundation self-concious of it being the premier wiki organization. This provides clear leverage that then can be used to better outreach, development, and lobbying.
 * Develops beneficial relationships with institutional donors - Individual donations are always a small part of any NGO's funding. The emergence of the Wikipedia Foundation as a clear leader, will attract donors with commercial interests in popularizing wikis (ie JotSpot), or in information and knowledge dissemination, for whatever goals. Since Wikipedia's stated goal is fact based neutrality, once this leadership is clearly established, sfunding sources will emerge form accross the spectrum of politics, science, and business.
 * Develops a pervassive wiki environment - a lot of the resistance to wikis is based of not having real exposure to them in controlled environments. The popularization of wikis drives directly in to the wikipedia projects: as people become familiar with the tool, it is only logical they will move to the well established solution for specific
 * Generate a meta-community - one of the inherents problems of wikipedia is that while membership to the community is open, its goals and way of doing things immediately closes the door to a number of people: those with a lack of interest in encyclopedias for example. This could potentially cut WIkipedia off a pontential source of knowledge and creativity. By establishing leadership, Wikipedia could create an effective, more formal meta-community of general wiki advocates, that benfits its own projects while advancing the whole community.
 * Open is better - By leaving the sole province of its own projects, Wikipedia can harness untold power for mutual benefit. IBM embracing open-source is a great example of how this works, as is Red Hat's aggressive hiring of participants in open-source projects they like or need.


 * Of course, I say this with a caveat: if elected, these are things I will be actively seeking community input, and dare say, consensus. As I have said before, I am smart, but not smarter than millions enaging in good faith seeking the same goals. My platform is about engaging those forces. --Cerejota 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising
I forgot to ask: what is your position on advertising and Wikimedia Foundation sponsored projects? This would seem to be a vital issue since en.wikipedia.org is now one of the most popular sites online, and most of the candidates seem to think that a major increase in funding is needed (and advertising is an obvious source)? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think advertising might be the obvious choice, but it is a bad one.


 * Legal issues - A non-profit organization has many limits on use of advertising in its projects, and a media has certain responsibilities to its advertisers which include legal contracts that meet accepted standards, one of which is a certain content stability which is incompatible with the wikipedia model.
 * Wikipedia is volunteer driven - If you start charging for use (which is what advertising is), this will create heavy ethical problems. Essentially the Foundation will be driving slaves for profit. This could even have unforseen legal ramifications in itself, even if the GFDL is clear on commercial dsitribution. Furthermore, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
 * NPOV Issues - the major, and most profitable, source of advertising income on the internet is contextual advertising. This potentially breaks the NPOV goal, by allowing businesses, political causes, and other organized efforts to buy advertising to skew the views of readers.
 * Community impact - The use of advertising assumes that users will mostly be passive consumers rather than active producers. This either destroys the entire rationale of active participation behind Wikipedia, or will create negaitive business consecuences as advertisers don't see ROI.


 * There are of course ways on which advertising can be brought in that mitigates these problems. We can get creative, for example passing some of the advertising revenue to registered editors, but this will really complicate the matters, and create its own set of problems. I think advertising is in general an easy, non-creative, unstrategic and unthoughtful solution.


 * The key to funding remains, in my opinion, in the institutional development of the Wikipedia Foundation as a non-profit, including the creation of an endowment and the development of relationships with institutional donors. The associated costs, both in monetary and social capital, to a non-profit solution are less than with advertising, and while the revenue potential could be less, I think ultimately the measured growth of the non-profit model supports the goals of the community much better than advertising.--Cerejota 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Composition of the board
What is your opinion on how the board should be constituted ? Do you think it should exclusively be composed of editors of our projects ? If so, rather elected or appointed ? Do you think we should have some people external to our community ? In those listed in the past two months on Foundation -l, can you list those you think would be great board members and those who might reveal dangerous for our dream ? Do you have names to suggest for board expansion ?

Copyright
Do you think the Foundation should be a publisher ? If not, do you think it should control what is publish, through the authorization (or not) of use of our brands ? Do you know of one project currently trying to be edited and in conflict with the Foundation on that matter ?

Money
What should be the business plan of the Foundation ? How would you suggest it earns money ?

Threat and forces
Can you cite 3 forces of the Foundation ? Can you cite the main 3 threats for our projects as of today ?

Vision
If you had to decide which are the 5 most important moves for the board in the next few months, which ones would they be ? (be practical)

Anthere

Collaborative consensus-based nature.
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Election_candidates_2006/En#Collaborative_consensus-based_nature. Question.] -- Jeandré, 2006-08-05t10:21z

Small question
I'm translating your statement, and I cannot find the equivalent for 'pet advocacies' in my lang. Could you rephrase it somehow for me, I think we might have here what one could call a cultural and lingual barrier.

Leaflet Image
I'm curious, you removed the IDF image from the 2006 conflict article with an edit summary of POV propaganda. Can you please elaborate? It was a picture of the leaflet that is described in the text at that point, I don't understand your edit. Thanks. -- Avi 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the talk archives for my previous comments on this and the talk page for my reply to your questions. I preffer to have discussions on articles in their talk page rather than mine, because these are debates for all the community and not just you and me.--Cerejota 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of detail
The person removed the details I added to that roles or actors article. Do you know how I complain about that? Im asking do you know where to complain because he just ignored the previous comments and started a new topic saying he was removing it. I can cite it all more thoroughly, the reports are online. 82.29.227.171 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would serve you well if you joined with a true account instead of posting via IP. --Cerejota 02:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I got one, I have another also but its only for creating articles/uploading images. Can you comment on the talk for the Roles article? Tewfik is continually removing this detail, I dont want to enagage in his edit war but the detail does have a place there. RandomGalen 11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate confirmation
One of the election officials, or someone from the Wikimedia office will get in contact with you and confirm you. Please be patient. Datrio 06:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Requests_for_arbitration. AdamKesher 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Chapter/board
What do you think of the relationship ? Do you see the relation as a federation type or a branch type ? (without or with legal ties). Do you think that chapters should have an authorization to use brand name and logo for deals (such as a DVD publishing) or should the Foundation handle this from a legal perspective ? What is your position in term of membership (should the Foundation have members or not ?). Anthere
 * I'd like an answer to that question. And it would be very nice if you moved talk and questions about your candidacy to meta, so as to allow people to actually find it in the millions of things you have on this talk page. Thanx. notafish }&lt;&#39;;&gt; 15:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration - do we need it?
After some good sleep, I've looked at our ArbCom case from another perspective. It's, in fact, a war about a couple of links. Well, the arbitration will start in 20 hours, but I'd like to suggest the last proposal: every participant recuses himself from editing the links in questioned pages for a few months, and we just leave that to other editors. The ArbCom will accept the case, but, well, a peaceful solution might be better. I've posted more on Requests for arbitration. Just think about that and about whether you really need arbitration; and, if you agree with that, just sign there. It's the last chance for a peaceful resolution. Thanks in advance! -- CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I was doing some looking and I see that you and your anti israel fighting buddies have been giving barnstars to each other. lol. Also I see we have opposing views on the war on terror. But I think it is great that we have people on different sides of the issue in the talk pages. --Zonerocks 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S Good luck in not getting banned from editing the page for a year ;D


 * Well, my barnstar was given to me by a Zionist jew. :D --Cerejota 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I bet he believes in the left side of polictics in israel. --Zonerocks 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, far from anti-israel! I forget, "grey" is not a color in the Fox News gamut... :D --Cerejota 01:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, your running for board of trustees? GL with that. Seems like a hard task. But what I mainly wanted to say is that I have created my own Wikiproject. It's about making pages for every governor in the US history, and there has roughly been around 400 governors, and some with pages created. I need help and would like to know if you would be interested. Here is the pageZonerocks 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow missed your message... Ill respond in your talk...--Cerejota 01:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Coordination archives
Just let's avoid making it a tradition... and you could ask GofG himself first, after all. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I did before I posted the message in the Desk.--Cerejota 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And what (approximately) he replied? -- CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignored me and continue to act as he was still moderator.--Cerejota 08:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik
I was just looking over your comment page and I really don't think Tewfik was harrassing you. I thought he was pretty civil in his posts on your talk page. I myself have had arguements with Tewfik and myself have gotten into heated debates where I did not assume good faith. Tewfik is very persistent in his arguments, and we don't often come to an agreement, but nearly always civil. I would like to encourage you to try to let the harrassment issue go and give things another try; and when dealing with Tewfik in the future, just concentrate on your points to be made, sources, etc. As you can see, Tewfik and I have had some rather lengthly debates on some of the talk pages and have mostly managed not to let it get out of hand, and I am sure the two of you can have similar civil discourse. Also what may help is if you ask for others to comment, as I find in my discussions with Tewfik (and of course others), we start to just repeat ourselves, progress slows and the chance for someone to get offended increases. I am not sure that you are aware, but in most discussions I have seen, I do happen to agree with your points, so bear in mind this advice is coming from someone who often agrees with you.--Paraphelion 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just leaving a friendly note that I see you are online now, and that you may want to say something at the Mediation, as everyone has said their two-cents, and it seems to be just awaiting you. I don't mean this to be at all hostile. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well sometimes cooling down is a good idea...--Cerejota 04:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means - and keep up the good work,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Project
The porject has been moved to a different page. I would like you to be a coordinator in the group. Zonerocks 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
User:Aleverde (User_talk:Aleverde) has been making increasingly anti-Islamic comments on his/her user talk page (especially the end of clearthought 16:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC) S/he also believes that the majority of the media is just out there to "flame Israel".clearthought 16:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll jump in and attempt to monitor his actions. But, on his user talk page, it's acceptable. He's not a particularly constant editor, so reconvincing or at least pointing to the explicit details of NPOV policy is also an option. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In addition, they seem to want to promote their agenda on other Israel-Arab conflict-related pages. ~ clearthought 17:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I notice some very unpleasant things like which is clearly POV-pushing. I suggest we all draw significant attention to find and fix POV inserts. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On article talk pages too clearthought 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikizine
Hi,

I am user:Walter from Wikizine. I offer you, like all the other candidates, the opportunity to send me statement of around 300 words that I will send to the subscribers of wikizine. For more information see Wikizine/election 2006.

Greetings, Walter 22:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: yes, I know, I have send this to you before by email. But for reasons I do not wish to explain here in detail I think in this case is useful that I can prove that I have asked you this. Because of that this second message.

Questions to candidate
Could your please expand on your ideas about adminishp and the moderation cabal? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. While both names are sometimes used, it's generally known as the Mediation Cabal. Just in case. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 01:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you are interested in the development of computerized translations. How do you plan to respond to non-English speakers who take offense at computerized translations of English pages? I was surprised at the strength of feeling by Spanish speakers when I did not proofread my Spanish version of a page sufficiently. r3 02:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Board of Trustees elections
Hello! This is just a friendly reminder that responses to the "interview" questions for the Wikipedia Signpost are due soon. The important message and questions were left on your meta talk page. If you have not already done so, please kindly take a look at them, and we would appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Cerejota, this is just a reminder that I need your reply as soon as possible. We're about to publish, and I would love to have your responses before we do. Thanks again. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Latinos
I just wanted to let you know about Wikiproject Latinos.--JuanMuslim 1m 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your move of Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK)
Regarding your move of Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK), I must protest for a number of reasons, particularly as you have moved a very popular page, to which thousands of articles link, without any consultation. This matter has previously been raised on the discussion page - here - and for a number of very valid reasons the consensus was to keep it at Royal Navy, particularly as that in the English language (and this is the English Language Wikipedia), it is the only navy known as the Royal Navy, and foreign language navies are referred to in either their national language and name e.g. Koninklijke Marine and in English to refer to it as e.g Royal Netherlands Navy (rather than a literal translation from the Dutch, Royal Navy). I am not going to revert your move strait away as I would prefer a proper debate on this, but I do intend to try and get this edit reversed. I would be obliged if you would join the discussion here. Emoscopes Talk 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the move, and your other two similar ones in the last couple of days. There's no apparent need for them - where we only have one article, pre-emptively disambiguating it just seems futile, and isn't needed for "Geographic Neutrality". Please discuss major changes like this before making them in future. Shimgray | talk | 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

rash
Hello. I see you added a line about the RASH origins, citing an argue about a homossexual murder. I'm looking for more info about early RASH stuff, and i'm very interested in this case of SHARP conflict. Can you tell me something more about it, or give me some urls, references, etc?

Thanks. Waldo Jeffers 13:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

IRRELEVANT?
OK than, I have laid out THE REASONS why the code could be damaging when it comes to these, and I have seen things A HELL lot more soapboxie and less relevant than that. Pray tell me WHY you deleted my arguments against releasing the data, or else I WILL take your "summary" in the history section literally. And I WILL continue reposting it until I am given actual reason NOT to. ELV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.161.212 (talk • contribs) date


 * Please read and understand WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIVIL.


 * By all means, if you want to discuss and edit, be bold and do so, but please spare us comment that has no practical implications for the encyclopedia. Others will also delete irrelevant comments, because it is against wikipedia policy to allow talk pages to become sopaboxes.


 * If you cannot edit a page because it is protected, you can tag your comments in the talk page with suggestions for admin.


 * Lastly, it is good form to sign your comments. Have a good night!--Cerejota 03:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Misunderstanding?
Sorry about the grumpy day, but it seems unnecessary to call me ignorant when in fact I stated the exact same math as you. I was merely trying to help Kirils understand that the AACS spec itself called the process key 128 bits (16 bytes). Or perhaps that wasn't directed at me? Long day for me as well... Happy editing! Cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do I call you ignorant? I did call that other guy ignorant, but I actually tanked you for your great sourcing!. I realize I missed a space, but still, nowhere near that sentence do I call anyone ignorant... talk about grumpy! :P --Cerejota 06:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR?
While I agree that my removal of the previous talk was a bit reactionary. Your reference to WP:CENSOR is a stretch.
 * (revert unwarranted rm of signed comments... WP:CENSOR... Questioning a rather strong analogy is relevant, even if done with humor.)

That guideline refers to content in article space. Talk page content should be kept on topic. At first glance what I removed seemed like irrelevant chatter, so I removed it. I see now that it could be considered on topic, even though glib. My intent wasn't to "censor" anyone, but to keep the talk page from going off on tangents. --Monotonehell 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you see how you over-reacted. It doesn't explain my apparent over reaction. Even?--Cerejota 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Chat
Como estas mi pana? I want to be sure about something. The following comment in my talk page:

"I am retagging. This is a matter of a mis-tag, not a matter for deletion. You ar enot being productive.--Cerejota 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"

That comment was really directed at User:howcheng and not at me, am I right? Anyway it is always nice to see around. Tony the Marine 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are one hundred percent correct!--Cerejota 02:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BUNCHing on your user page
I was going to propose a fix here, but when I noticed the long line of scripting languages you are familiar with is part of what's causing the poor rendering, I realized you can probably figure this out should you wish to. The problem may be firefox specific, though. -- Kendrick7talk 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the first one to notice LOL! I wont let out why but its meant to be that way... :P--Cerejota 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Factory farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline
I believe you may have spoken too soon. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Re: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20 Al-Aqsa Intifada
Of course I remember you, and it is good to see you again. I see your agreement with me as significant because of our past conflicts, which tells me that my view on the topic isn't simply a consequence of a limited, personal view. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 19:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the policy states, that a POV name should still be used if it is the most notable. The reasoning behind my discussion is that in scholarly works, literature, and media, the two names are equally common. In that kind of case, the neutral name should be used. Regardless, I guess I'll see you around.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk  20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Puerto Rico
Hey! The Puerto Rico Portal page has been revamped with additional content, including a Selected series of Articles, Pictures, and Biographies related to Puerto Rico. However, maintaining a Portal is no easy task. As a member of the WikiProject Puerto Rico, please consider helping out in one of the following tasks:


 * You can add Puerto Rico current events and news to the In the news... section as they occur.
 * You can participate in the discussion of Nominations for content nominated to Selected status.
 * You can nominate content for Selected status in the Nominations page.

Your help and contributions are greatly appreciated. Enjoy the Portal! - Mtmelendez (Talk 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an automated message for all WikiProject Puerto Rico participants.

Case study in WP:AGF
Dear Cerejota,

first of all, I thank you for your contribution about "ignorantia juris".

You deleted the link to my case study in WP:AGF, I guess because you think it is not appropriate for the main page. What do you think if I try and insert it at the end of the "see also" section? I believe it might be useful to have some real example, expecially if it is controversial. This is a case in which it was difficult to apply the AGF and the not biting guidelines. I think it is well written, and readers are free to interpret it as they wish. Somebody will think the AGF is not appliable, some others will think the opposite, but they all will face an interesting problem related with the guideline. It is good food for thought. Do you agree? Paolo.dL 09:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of An uncivil_environment_is_a_poor_environment
I've nominated An uncivil_environment_is_a_poor_environment, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:An uncivil_environment_is_a_poor_environment and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of An uncivil_environment_is_a_poor_environment during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  Sala Skan  14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegation of Israeli apartheid
Hello, For personnal reasons I have to stop my contributions to wp... That comes to a bad moment because I would have wanted to finalize the work of traduction of an article I wrote in French and that people here translated for me ! Palestinian Civil War (1947-48). The content is I think quite good title is very bad ;-) lol lol lol My interest in Israeli apartheid or Zionist terrorism and also Zionist entity is more due to an intellectual personnal interest in NPoV rather in a real knowledge on the topic ! But on these subjects, it can help ;-) This being said, you have my full support to try to "correct" the article and I think you are the right person to do this job. Good work :-) Alithien 17:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq
Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

iLoser DRV
The DRV discussion continues at Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1 and a clear consensus seems to be emerging. If there are any remaining bits of data missing from the conversation, you may wish to add them sooner rather than later to ensure that they are properly considered before an admin closes the discussion. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respect other users who use official procedures in good faith
It is beyond outrageous to accuse someone who is using official procedures in good faith of of being disruptive, as you did on Wikipedia:Deletion review. You are entitled to disagree, but not to treat other editors with contempt. Sumahoy


 * (this refers to my comment in the Deletion review for Category:American murderers)It is beyond outrageous that you launch a personal attack against me, without any evidence whatsoever. My comments where not directed at the use of the WP:DRV, but at the insistence of many editors in using POV titles for their pet articles, categories, etc, usually engaging on sometimes endless cycles of bureaucratic procedure in order to disrupt wikipedia to make their point. I would have clarified this had you taken time to ask. You accuse me of something very serious, and I ask you apologize before I raise a "no personal attacks" procedure. Thanks.--Cerejota 00:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)