User talk:IFeito

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more, Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly, Tutorial is more in-depth, and Topical index is exhaustive. The following links might also come in handy: Glossary FAQ Help Manual of Style Five Pillars of Wikipedia Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Translation into English and Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be civil with users, strive to maintain a neutral point of view, verify your information, and show good etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page or ask the true experts at Help desk. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 21:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ignacio! I've been talking with Rockero about future reworkings of the article. You can see his suggestions on my userpage -- User:Katsam -- and then my responses on his talkpage -- User talk:Rockero420. Please weigh in with any opinions! hope you are well, Katsam 08:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas
Got a source for this claim? It is pretty strong and it may be removed if you don't provide an authoritative source. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  02:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It would be nice if you could get a reporter to interview your aunt (then we could add the claim as "it is claimed that..." and link to the interview). Otherwise it would seem as gossip, but it is still an interesting thing to know, actually. Well, I guess it gets removed then? Don't forget to sign your posts! Happy editing. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is going to be a difficult thing to do, for instance, the last anon is pretty strong with his POV pushing but he seems to be a reasonable person (he backed off the polls thing after I cited a couple articles that cast some doubts over their accuracy). The key here is to cite reliable sources when making any changes.


 * Have you gone through the article's talk page? That should give you an idea of where we stand on the quest of making this article as NPOV as possible. -- Run e Welsh|&tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 15:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

De 'true believers' y su incansable fanatismo
Gracias por tu comentario en mi discusión.

La verdad es que va a ser imposible hacer algo por este artículo. Ha sido por completo capturado por fanáticos que no creen menos que AMLO es una especia de semi dios y ellos se ven como sus apóstoles en la tierra.

Pero te invito a que vengas a la Wikipedia en español al artículo de AMLO. Llevo combatiendo fanáticos ya por más de un mes. El artículo era una oda al futuro dictador, pero ahora está más centrado, aunque faltan detalles como los asesinatos de su hermano y amigo, que deben ir alli, por supuesto.

Lo que pasa es que toda esta gente son personas que tienen una autoimagen muy mala y se rechazan a si mismos enormemente, de modo que creen que lo que debe transformarse de forma radical es el mundo mismo, porque creen que en ese nuevo mundo sus defectos pasarán desapercibidos. Por eso se ven atraidos por lideres mesiánicos que ofrecen mundos nuevos. Es el caso del ascenso del Hitler, de Mussolini, de Perón, de Cárdenas, de Stalin y todos los demás monstruos de la historia. Los frustados consigo mismos han logrado el ascenso de estos dignos espejos de sus personalidades deformes.

Si tienes chance, leete el libro que se reseña aqui: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

Es una maravilla para entender la mentalidad del fanático que aquí queremos combatir. Yo he experimentado y todos irán siempre contra ti, contra tu persona, porque creen que si logran "desenterrar" al ser deforme que ellos quieren que viva en ti, nadie verá al ser deforme que son ellos. Pero es cosa de darles un par de zapes intelectuales y caen de inemdiato de nuevo al suelo.

Bueno, te espero en http://es.wikipedia.org

AMLO
Me imagino que sabes que aunque añadas semiprotected, la página en sí no está bloqueada a menos de que seas un administrador, y sería muy inapropiado protegerla para bloquear a un lado de un debate. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do understand that, but adding the tag doesn't do anything, you actually have to protect the page, which is something only an administrator can do. However, there's a fairly limited semi-protection policy regulating use of that. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

About "violent clashes" versus "confrontation". I believe the use of the latter word usually is better to describe even verbal only discussions. A clash describes better situations where violence is present. But no problem if you decide to keep the word.

Saludos!

Primeditor 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mis-placed copy of your user page
Can we just zap User:Ifeito? Uncle G 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources required
As a self-professed Wikipedian from Mexico, please help to find sources for in order to make a verifiable encyclopaedia article about the concept. See chav for how such articles should be sourced. Uncle G 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Scientology page
If you want to dispute the neutrality of the Scientology page you are supposed to describe your objection on the talk page; no need for a drive-by. And in fact what you should do first is attempt to edit the article to make it neutral.--Justanother 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadalupe
Can you tell me what makes you feel the Guadalupe article isn't neutral anymore? I've been working on it the past couple of days and I don't know why it seems less neutral to you now: the critical voices about the (relative lack of) documentation and the critical voices about the "miraculous" qualities of the tilma are still there.

If your problem is with the removal of the "Montufar said to have commissioned Marcos" part of the article, I took it out because I'm trying to insert citations for everything, and I couldn't find a citation for it. Same with the change of the Garza-Valdes text: the Proceso article mentioned was no longer online (at least not at the link that was provided last year) so I took some of that reference down. If you have citations for either of those items you're welcome to put them back in.

Anyway, please tell me what your dispute is rather than just putting the neutrality tag up. Katsam 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * p.s. you say "where is the U of Texas study" by which I assume you mean the study done by Garza-Valdez;  it's right down there in the "controversies" section.

"'Finally, the Archbishop of Mexico, Norberto Rivera Carrera, commissioned a 1999 study to test the tilma's age. The researcher, Leoncio Garza-Valdés, had previously worked with the Shroud of Turin. Upon inspection Garza-Valdés found three distinct layers in the painting, at least one of which was signed and dated. He also said that the original painting showed striking similarities to the original Lady of Guadalupe found in Extremadura Spain, and that the second painting showed another Virgin with indigenous features. Finally, Garza-Valdés claimed the tilma's fabric was made of hemp and linen, not agave fibers as is popularly believed. The photographs of these putative overpaintings were not available in the Garza-Valdés 2002 publication, however, and those who saw the photographs did not agree with his interpretation.'"
 * Katsam 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

POV discussion
I'd be happy to discuss changes with you. I'm not Catholic myself, and if you want to argue that the article has a heavy Catholic POV I don't agree (you may remember that I'm the one who wrote the "symbol of mexico" and "documentation" sections last December, basically changing the article from the devotional treatise it was then).

NPOV policy on Wikipedia says that the most popular position on a topic should take up the most room on its Wikipedia page, followed by minority opinions. It's my sense that the most important aspect of Guadalupe is her importance as a symbol of Mexico, closely followed by Guadalupe's (Catholic) religious importance (which is totally missing from the article at the moment -- all we have is that stuff about the Popes and then the "miraculous tilma" stuff). I think the third most important thing about Guadalupe is the "icon of cultural syncretism" part -- how Guadalupe represents to many people the mixture of Spanish and indigenous culture.

The stuff about miracles and miracle-disprovers is of low importance, I think, and doesn't belong at the top of the article. Personally, I don't care about the miraculous eyeballs, etc., at all. As far as I'm concerned we could even erase the entire section called "Controversies about the tilma."

If you want to add to the "documentation" section with more details about why the apparition didn't happen, that's fine with me. Rockero and I have been talking about starting a "daughter article" about documentation because it is such a rich topic -- but one which I don't think is interesting or easily comprehensible to everyone who visits the page.

tell me what you think. Katsam 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I wrote you a long message on the Guadalupe talkpage.

3RR
Just letting you know the details of WP:3RR because you have reverted 3 times on Jesus. Undoing the edits of other editors continuously is considered disruptive editing. Keep in mind that partial reverts are the same as full reverts, and that it doesn't have to be the exact same content each time either for it to "count" against you. One more revert on your behalf, and you will have crossed the line. Just letting you know in case you weren't aware of the specifics (you are welcome to read WP:3RR yourself). Please continue discussing your proposals on the talk page. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit comment on the Jesus Wikipedia page
As this is my first time viewing the Jesus page, your comment:


 * Does anybody else find the reference to Alexander out of place? I believe we're talking about completely different situations.)

seems to be correct for this edit. I don't know why anyone would even mention Alexander in connection with a study of Jesus and the scriptures unless it was of prophetic importance. I think your edit, upon first impression, was correct.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Date conventions
Hello there. I've noticed you've been changing the existing BC/AD system to BCE/CE in the Ancient Rome article. Please don't: in Wikipedia, both systems are acceptable (the only restriction being that a given page should uniformly use only one of them), but it is inappropriate for an editor to change from one style to another just out of preference; in Wikipedia neither system is favoured over the other. Thanks! --Nehwyn 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadalupe
Hey there. Just a quick note to say I undid an edit you made in error. You reverted the edit quickly though so no harm done. Anyway, I just wanted to say sorry. I thought I was removing the word "miraculous" when in fact I was putting back in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkins (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate President of Mexico
He´s not the Legitimate President of Mexico. It´s simply a title he claims. So it can´t be added to the other boxes.85.244.55.98 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)