User talk:Likeminas/Archive 1

Political propaganda
Wikipedia is not a right place for political propaganda. You may like some figures in Chile's history or not, but you must to state unprejudiced information affirmed by reliable sources. That is about you editing 1973 Chilean coup d'état article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.202.77 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Only administrators can protect or semi-protect a page. The tag that you added does not semi-protect Chile article. See Requests for page protection.-- Jespinos (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I thought a semi-protection protection was allowed. For some reason, that article is constantly taking vandalism attacks. Every other day there's one. Likeminas (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Chile
You've been constantly reverting my edits to Chile without giving any explanation. I'm going to report you if you continue such behavior. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve reverted most of your edits, because you’re constantly pushing your POV on that article. I also see that you’ve gone thru the same kind of impasse with “Selecciones de la vida”. You can report me if you want. Yet do not have a case. Your actions speak for themselves... Likeminas (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Care to explain what these POV contents I am supposedly pushing are? Reverting without giving an explanation is considered vandalism. Do you realize that when you do blind reverts like this you are changing sourced information with false information, such as changing Chile's GDP (PPP) per capita from $13,745 (real value) to $15,745 (false, vandalized value)?. You revert without analizing what you are reverting to. Doing an "undo" on my version isn't enough. You need to analyze exactly what you are reverting to avoid reverting to a vandalized version. Stop behaving so irresponsibly. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cielo you have managed to get a bunch of people against your repetitive deletitions and capricious edits. Your talk-page speaks for itself.
 * Moreover, your "contributions" clearly indicate that you have recently engaged in edit warring, therefore, violating wikipedia starndars.
 * As I said before:
 * Future unexplained edit as well as not dicussed deletions to that article will be used as evidence of your repetitive behavior, and will be promptly reported. Likeminas (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User Sclua has reported me
Hi there! I've seen you are also noncompliant with Sclua's edits on the article Chile. Well, he has just reported me for my comment in Chile's talk-page.... Would you like to participate? Link.

"Que, o la tumba serás de los libres, o el asilo contra la opresión" --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cordillera del Paine
I reverted your edit to Cordillera del Paine because elevations that are very obviously wrong are very widely published. While the Chilean IGM does not publish these elevations on its own mapping, on which no elevations are given for most of the Paine summits, it would be very easy for the IGM to measure these summits and give correct elevations. Infact, it probably has measured them, but has not published the measurements because it does not want to disputed the inflated elevations, which are widely used to promote the region. But false or lack of accurate elevations are a major source of frustration for topographic researchers who want to develop accurate digital elevation models. The publication of accurate elevations for Cerro Paine Grande, the Torres del Paine and Cuerno Principal by the Chilean IGM would be very much appreciated! Viewfinder (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If You Have Personal Problems, Deal With Them Yourself
I really do not care about working with you in any article, nor does your attempt at intimidating me actually work. Repeating what I said, if you want to look for a fight do not come looking for it with me.

"I can’t help it but notice and realize that throughout all your edits regarding Peru (that happen to involve Chile); you vehemently try to place a favorable Peruvian point on most of your edits."

I write only factual information. "Point of view" would basically be my opinion. It is not my "opinion" if I back my information with reliable sources. Since I back my information with reliable sources, I do not write in "Point of View." I write only factual information.

"This has been the case in the Bicycle kick article where most of your references are newspapers mentioning the word “chacala” maybe once or twice."

First, do not comment on a problem that you have not been involved in. Unless you have something constructive to say, go stick your nose somewhere else.

Second, if you have a problem with the "once or twice" mentioning of a word, this is something that I also did not agree with in the first place. It was user "Selecciones de la Vida," a Chilean might I add, that blatantly abused this concept. Since you do not know anything about this discussion, which once again leads me to ask you to not talk to me about it if you do not want to seriously contribute to that article, here is what happened when I confronted this Chilean about his irrational usage of articles that mentioned the world "chinela" once or twice (Read it if you want):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_kick#Source_Lying:_Not_Encyclopedic

"Now, you’ve come to push your Peruvian POV on the war of the pacific section of the Chile-Peru relations article." "While I understand that this historical event might evoke strong sentiments on some Peruvians editors"

I should contact Wikipedia administrators by these inflamatory comments but, like I explained before, I really do not care or have the time to deal with childish people that write to me in such a way. Of course, if you keep tempting me then I will have no other option than to turn you in to the Wikiquette authorities.

"This time, you have gone out of your way to give lengthy (and unnecessary) background information on the conditions that Peru was faced before entering the war, so that in the reader’s perception it doesn’t come out as a defeated nation by its own merits but due to some other unforeseen factors."

The information I provided was neither lengthy or unecessary. That is YOUR PoV. Do not push your 'Chilean' PoV in the article.

"Do you think I should include another paragraph relating the domestic issues or any other set of events that preceded Chile’s role in the war on an article’s section that’s meant to be just a rough summary of it?"

The section is not "supposed" to be a rough summary of the war. The section, as part of the "Peru-Chile Relations" article, is meant to explain the relations between Peru and Chile during the War of the Pacific.

"- invaded and occupied, without a prior declaration of war"

This is a fact.

"-the expansionist ambitions of Chile."

I could certainly find a series of reliable sources on this.

"-The Chilean army left a path of destruction, and Lima was stormed and sacked."

This is a fact, for which I can also gather a series of reliable sources.

"Then again, after I added a concise paragraph of the new controversy involving Peru’s top general, you have once again gone out of your way to cite Yellow press articles - from Peru of course- to give a more favorable view of the facts. This time with another “surprising” twist; Chilean politicians are mingling in Peru’s domestic policies. If you notice, my entry not only included the general’s polemic remarks, but also the exaggerated reaction of some newspapers in Chile, most importantly I tried my best to use objective language and cite my edit using a neutral/reliable source, CNN."

This is soley Chilean PoV.

"So I ask;" Keep your Chilean PoV out of the articles, and do not try to impose yourself upon me.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. You keep reverting my edits, and I will contact Wikipedia.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not so much that I'm also not willing to work for a NPoV article. I simply do not appreciate you direclty going into my talk page and accusing me of "vehemently" using "Peruvian PoV" on my edits. What kind of a way to suggest "friendship" is that? It would be like me going to your house and accusing you of theft and slander, then asking you to "work with me." I'm sure the first thing you would do is kick me out, not seek to be my buddy.


 * In addition, "Peru.com" is not yellow press. It is a reliable website of a certain degree of fame in Peru.


 * Also, the information provided to Chilean newspapers about Donayre was completely truncated. You can watch the actual non-truncated video on Youtube. As Donayre stated, his declarations were made in the year 2006 in reference to the Chile-Peru border dispute; not in 2008 and not without a reason. This information is important to mention in the Chile-Peru relations section mentioning Donayre because it helps present factual information into the matter; currently only mentioning how "El Mercurio" took the news is completely Chilean PoV.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I really do not have the time to be playing around with you. I know you're a great contributor to Wikipedia, but as a human being you also take a certain degree of PoV in all of the things that you write. The information concerning Donayre is, no matter whether CNN or some other place writes it, is completely describing a Chilean PoV. Peru.com does present a degree of PoV in terms of how Peru sees things, but that does not make it a "Yellow Press" newsgroup. The reports made by Peru.com are reliable under all terms; they report things as they happen, not as how they think happened.

http://www.peru.com/noticias/sgc/POLITICA/2008/11/30/DETALLE14789.aspx

"Esta mañana, el general sostuvo que sus expresiones antichilenas son las que siente como "soldado que ama a su patria", y recordó que fueron emitidas cuando el Perú presentaba su demanda marítima al Tribunal de La Haya."

http://www.peru.com/noticias/sgc/POLITICA/2008/11/30/DETALLE14756.aspx

"En un vídeo difundido esta semana en YouTube, que aparentemente data del año 2006, el general expresa: "he dado la consigna acá de que chileno que entra ya no sale. O sale en cajón. Y si no hay suficientes cajones, saldrán en bolsas de plástico". Luego, el general manifiesta que las mujeres podían actuar como "mujeres bomba", para seducir a los chilenos y así ayudar al Ejército peruano. Según Donayre esos comentarios se hicieron en una reunión informal y fueron en respuesta a una pregunta sobre lo que sucedería en un eventual enfrentamiento bélico." After taking into account that Donayre said what he said during the maritime dispute (in the year 2006) and an informal reunion of friends, the whole context of what he said changes.

Had the general said these things in the year 2008, without any reason, then obviously his remarks would have no justification whatsoever. However, this is not the case. Take a look once again, this time with the thought in mind that this took place in 2006 during the maritime dispute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S755o0r__h0&feature=related

It's really not the same "meaning." It would be like me suddenly saying that you're an idiot. Quite obviously, if said that without any reason then my statement would be a complete barbarity. Yet, if I said that you were an idiot during an argument we were having, then the context of me calling you an idiot completely changes.

Quite obviously, I doubt Chilean officers did not say anything bad about Peruvians during the 2006 maritime dispute. I'm sure that you as an intellectual individual can also figure that out.

All I ask for that particular section is to include the facts of the situation, and the full commentary of Donayre. Take note that he even makes mention of the military when he states at the beginning of what he states (the part not shown in the Wikipedia or CNN article, but shown in the youtube video): "Have the confidence that we..." 'We' is the Peruvian military.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule
I wanted to let you know (if you don't already know it) that reverting changes more than 3 times during with 24 hours constitues edit warring. So far you have reverted Chile more than 3 times within 24 hrs, and not only my edits but other people's as well. If continued, such a uncivil behavior will be promptly reported to a wikipedia administrator.

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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

☆ CieloEstrellado 04:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule contains a list of exceptions. Reverting the edits of a single user is NOT an exception, as you say. In fact, it is one of the worst kinds of edit wars. You've been warned. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Latin-American Wikipedia Meeting


IMF Latin America Figues
I noticed you seemed concerned regarding the figures I used to update the Latin America page, I was simply using figures from 2007 where Mexico did have a higher GDP (ppp) per capita than Chile, (IMF) now, you are going of figures for 2008 which are a little misleading since they are a prediction used by the IMF, plus 08' is not over yet, thus not official.

Where did you get the figures for your updated Latin America GDP (PPP) they are incorrect from what I can see in the IMF website?


 * }

Tosão (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky article
I have left my response on Talk:Noam Chomsky.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there
Please be more careful when reverting—this edit was not vandalism, it was in fact a correction of inaccurate information. It is always best to check the reference when a change is made to statistical figures or other numeric data. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits on the Argentina page.
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/Argentina, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chavismo
On 5 January 2009, you reverted my edit of the hatnote on the Chavismo article, stating:"Extreme partisanship according to who and by what standards?????". In the attempt to disambiguate the hatnote, I used the words from the lead sentence in the Chauvinism article, "Chauvinism (pronounced /ˈʃoʊvɨnɪzəm/) is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group." So to answer your question, by the standards of anyone not a member of the group. Chauvinism is extreme POVism. How would you disambiguate Chávez's ideology and Chauvinism? --Bejnar (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. I was not commenting upon Chavismo.  I was disambiguating the hatnote Not to be confused with Chauvinism. I replaced it with the hatnote This article is about a political ideology. For extreme partisanship, see Chauvinism.  Is there a better way to disambiguate that hatnote? --17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The part about disambiguating the hatnote is to give the searcher an idea about what the Chauvinism article is about, in other words, what do they have to choose between. If you don't like the words "extreme partisanship" in reference to the Chauvinism article, what would you suggest in its place?  You understand that the sentence "For extreme partisanship, see Chauvinism." refers to the Chauvinism article and not to the Chavismo article. Disambiguating the hatnote does not happen if the second part is left out. So, what is your suggestion for the second part that refers, in a very brief phrase, to the meat (substance) of the Chauvinism article? --Bejnar (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about??


 * --Likeminas (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Accepted, and implemented. Thanks for talking this over. --Bejnar (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Argentina's White pop. and Amerindian roots
It seems that you at least get why my edits should be left in. What is your opinion on the situation? I beleive if it's left out then the article is filled with half-truths. Just saying 87-97% of Argentina is "White" isn't good enough in my opinion. Strangely some say it's out of place there...? I can't think of any reason why... Many 'White" Latin Americans have Amerindian ancestry. Argentines are no different - except for the fact that they'd like they're country to remain "perfectly European". If you could help a bit it would be appreciated. Thanks. Cali567 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to send a big Thank You for your awesome research and dedication to presenting Facts in all Articles! I took a look at the discussion in the Argentina talk page... I can't tell you how much I've wanted to edit according to sources and facts without being bullied about it or having my edits erased. Thanks. Cali567 (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

done

 * again. Arafael (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arafael (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC) and again. Arafael (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks

citation tag
thanks for your comment, I do not believe that it is excessive nor incorrect use of tag. many of the citations for paragraphs are books which makes it difficult to verify the accuracy of statements. there is nothing wrong with adding more than 1 citation to back a claim. secondly, citating simply the last line of the paragraph does not mean the whole paragraph is automatically citated. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * would you please hold on the excessive use of exclamation marks? secondly, yes I totally understand books can be acceptable reliable sources, but reliable websites are easier to verify. Please do not post on my talk page again. thank you. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why you remove the changes ?
tell me only to correct errorsn not to remove all things !, Santiago is a big City, compared to Buenos Aires and Paris, it have to be a big article, not like this ! tell me what to correct, I will do it now ! please dont remove !El Azteca (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's him again. Thanks for the quick catch. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of citation needed templates
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You must not remove citation needed templates.

Violations:

Luis Napoles (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Chile
Luis Napoles seems to have had a hand there too. I'm a bit of a newbie editor and no Chile expert, so I've reverted as much as I could. You might be interested. 166.217.71.89 (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Second warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 

Please assume good faith and do edits one by one. Do not remove citation needed templates, nor reintroduce unsourced content. Big reverts is an easy to way to get blocked from Wikipedia.Luis Napoles (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this warning. Likeminas has a history of not liking citation templates even though they form part of official Wikipedia policy. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Third warning
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Luis Napoles (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

}}

On edit-warring
Hey Likeminas, it's disappointed that you got slapped with a block while Luis escaped, but sometime's that's the way things go here. Myself and several admins are now watching him, and hopefully they will act accordingly if he steps out of line again. Feel free to leave me a message if you need anything else. Hasta luego!  Grsz 11  17:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that the one sided block was a little heavy handed and unfair. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why you removed my edits to the Salvador Allende`s page?
Everything I edited is backed up by verifiable sources from intelligence agencies and schoolars, I only reverted the changes of the guy who deleted all the references to KGB and cuban involvement in Allende`s government.

Why do you let this happen?Agrofelipe (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another block for violation of WP:Edit war
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Please review the above policy and WP:3RR; you do not get "three free reverts" per day, enabling you to remove disputed but cited content while requesting the other person respond to the talkpage - you are supposed to gain consensus at the talkpage first. I note that I am blocking you in what may appear to be a content dispute because the material removed is both cited and also related in regard to one particular political system - and I therefore am concerned that your actions are not guided by good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Request reviewed and declined; see below. AGK 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently looking into your unblock request; please sit tight for a few minutes. AGK 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly did this user violate 3RR?  Grsz 11  20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(Although I do hate the practice of "blocking party A because party B also got blocked." It's just so petty!) AGK 20:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere. But it looks like user Luis Napoles is inmune to blocks despite his behavior. It's interesting that they ignored your request on the noticeboard, even though you're an administrator and his went through rather swiftly.
 * How can things like that happen?
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Grsz: Likeminas was blocked for edit warring, rather than for "violating" 3RR. For evidence of edit warring, see Special:Contributions/Likeminas. AGK 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But did anybody bother to look at the other party, ?  Grsz 11  20:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Until this point, it seems the blocking administrator had not examined the conduct of that party, no. I have done so, and blocked him for disruptively editing.


 * Of course the blocking administrator didn't examine his behavior, even though a report was made on him prior to mine.
 * So basically I got blocked for trying to discuss that user's POV pushing and usage of unreliable sources such as Youtube videos on the article Civil Disobedience. Is that disrruptive editing?
 * Likeminas (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No; you were blocked for edit warring. If a user's edits are not substantiated with reliable sources, then discuss it with him / her—or on the article talk page. When a user is consistently adding false information, then reverting him (or requesting page protection or administrator intervention) may be become the only option; but, insofar as I can tell—and, evidently, as the blocking administrator can tell, there is no consistent history. Does that make sense? The golden rules of editing are: Use common sense; have a bit of courtesy; and bear in mind that each edit must benefit, rather than negatively affect, the project. AGK 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

From past experiences discussing things with you, Likeminas, you do have a tendency to easily go into edit warring. However, even though we have our different opinions on certain topics, after carefully reviewing the article Civil disobedience, I can say that I understand the position you took and agree with your comments on the matter. In other words, I agree with your stance but disagree with the actions you took against it. I have edited the article in order to lessen down the obvious attacks against communism/socialism in the article, and have also presented a new section discussing the problem of propaganda.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
Great job on the resolution obtained after seeking out help from neutral contributors. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A resolution has not yet been obtained. The matter is still being discussed, so you better wait before you hold a party Selecciones.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Pinochet2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pinochet2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Luis Napoles
Just so you know, I have mentioned you ---> Here. Red thoreau (talk)RT 13:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just saw that you have been blocked for a month (while Luis has amazingly gotten nothing). This is extremely unfortunate, and I would recommend challenging it. Luis Napoles, is gaming the system and driving many qualified and committed editors away from this overall project, I would hate to see you go as well.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree with what you were doing (reverting highly POV edits), it is clear that the way you were doing it is problematic. Edit warring is edit warring. See EW:
 * Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Warnings"
Likeminas, for future reference, if you believe that a non-admin user is trying to inundate you with unjustified warning templates in a legitimate disagreement over pov content, then you should remove such warnings. You having kept them on your page (when the other user does not) only creates the visual impression that you are the guilty party and by keeping the warnings (you almost recognize their legitimacy). A user can decide what stays on their talk page (except blocks, which even then can be removed after they are expired) – and there is nothing wrong with removing non-admin warnings that you find to be illegitimate and wrongly appropriated. Red thoreau (talk)RT 19:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all true. I recommend you leave a comment on your talk page saying you disagree with the warning before you remove it, just so there's a record. This even applies to admin issued warnings although I would do this only after serious introspection. FWIW, you can remove the old block notices as well along with the  requests too, once the block expires (not before). You're not allowed to remove declined  templates while the block is in effect. You're also never allowed to remove proven  tags or  tags. IP editors are not allowed to remove info describing the ip address, like, , etc.
 * All that being said, archiving is much preferred over removal. Happy editing.    Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the advice. I will definitely keep it in mind.
 * Likeminas (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IMF 2009
Why did you update the latin american figures with "projected data" we should stick to 2008 figures like all other articles, then ones 2009 is over update with 2009. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's use the article's talk page.
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ushuaia
Thanks for inviting to the War of the Pacific talk page.. Now I would like to invite you to the ongoing debate on Ushuaia. From my point of view the problem with that article is that it presents Ushuauia as the southernmost city in the first sentences while in fact the title is disputed. Istead of claiming that ushuaia is it would be more correct to say Ushuaia is sometimes considered the southernmost city in the world or Ushuaia is known as "the southernmost city in the world" or Ushuaia is often considered the southernmost city in the world but is challanged by Puerto Williams x km to the south. Dentren |  Ta lk  17:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ushuaia#Dubious tag?


 * Alright. I'll take a look.
 * By the way, I don't know if you notice but I borrowed your green banner at the top.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Salvador Allende page
The standard introduction in encyclopaedias and wikipedia for presidents is opened with: …served as president…etc. His career as physician is secondary to his main role as a world renowned president. That he was a Chilean politicians is in essence redundant given that he was a president. It is very disrespecting of Allende to begin his biography with “he was a physician and a Chilean politician” and then to make a statement about the nature of his death in the introduction. Especially Allende’s death which is very controversial and a favourite point of “mockery” of his political opponents who believe Allende’s death was not the outcome of the military coup but an act of his own volition. Moshe-paz (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, this discussion would be better suited for the article’s talk page.
 * But allow me to quickly address a few things;


 * The lead (intro) unambiguously says that he was the president of Chile.
 * Salvador Isabelino Allende Gossens IPA: [salβaðor aʝεnde 'gosens] (June 26, 1908 – September 11, 1973) was a physician and Chilean politician, usually reckoned as Latin America's first democratically-elected Marxist president


 * See? It’s right there on the first sentence.
 * And to be perfectly honest, I don’t see how naming his professions (Physician and Politician) can be considered disrespectful. It’s not fiction or some sort of gossip. They’re hard-cold facts.
 * Now, regarding his death. I see another guy (April08 I belive) making up fringe theories about it. Nonetheless, as far as sources go, they all seem to corroborate the suicide version. So, until no reliable source is presented to refute them or at least cast doubt on them, I see no room for conspiracy theories.
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude, but the name is April809 and the suicide theory was proven wrong by me. Now chin up , listen up and learn.
 * Too bad your fringe theory will not be included in the article anytime soon.
 * Likeminas (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 *   April l809  20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by April809 (talk • contribs)
 * Underdog theory, you mean? Yeah , it will take 20 years of research before I can find more sources. Till then , I'll be wikipeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by April809 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok then, let us know how your research goes.
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do ...   April l809  14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by April809 (talk • contribs)

WofTP
Hello. There are pending tasks in WofTP. Arafael (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Likeminas (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, besides gathering more reliable sources I see no other pending tasks.
 * In any case, I suggest you use the article's talk page to voice your concerns.
 * If interested, I'll participate.
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, please check out the mediation here Thanks, Fahrenheit  15:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockets
What is socket puppetry? I've never heard that term used before.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant Sock puppetry. See this WP:sock for more info.
 * Likeminas (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Slim
The 50% of Mexico lives under poverty is poorly sources- please see this http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf on page 33, its 4.8%, if you can prove otherwise I will have to delete some of the data, same goes for GDP per Capita, we both know its higher. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note, that I'm not claiming anything. That's what the sources say.
 * In any case, I'd suggest you use the talk page of the relevant article to discuss your intentions, especially if you're going to delete sourced material.
 * Likeminas (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dropping You A Prize!


Likeminas, Compression09King has gave you a WikiKudo! WikiKudos show respect for other users. Give a Kudo (If you think the user deserves it) by putting on their talk page.

Compression09King Extreme Wikipedian 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at South America. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even close. Editor is gaming the system since I posted a warning on his talk page first. Please see article history and talk page [] to see that editor has blindly reverted my edits despite lack of support for such actions.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is ANI?
Hey Likeminas you’ve been reporting me to ANI? Who is she, who is this - may I say - fine lady who has taken an interest in me? Is she good looking at least? Moshe-paz (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shalom Moshe!
 * ANI stand for Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and it's full of not precisely good-looking ladies, but rather, hairy-chested characters that like to hand out free blocks to naughty wikipedians.
 * I suggest you take a look at it. You never know where you’ll find love. ; )
 * Likeminas (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup
G'day Likeminas: Regarding this AfD, I have done some work on this article - but it has a long way to go. The edits done alter the basis of the initial nomination for deletion - given that the material that was said to have been "pasted and copied" is now in quote form and the source of the article's content...Regards...(also what has become of April?)...Moshe-paz (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

German Chilean
Hi, I saw you reverted one edit about the number of german chileans. I have seen a lot of reverts and edit changin these numbers. Could you not explain why ther are 600.00 and not 200.000 in the talk page? (I can not read german so I can evualuate the sources) Dentren |  Ta lk  19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know German either, and upon further review (using Google translate) the figures of 150-200 thousands seem to be suported by the sources.
 * Likeminas (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from . When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the . Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The article which was inadvertedly vandalized was the War of the Pacific article. Have a great day.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The article which was inadvertedly vandalized was the War of the Pacific article. Have a great day.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK
It's cool Likeminas. No problem. I appreciate your apology. I'll check link 62 and see what the problem is.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't hold a good discussion like this. I really want to improve the article, and I really do want to listen to your opinion. You've helped out improve the article as much as I have, and you've contributed plenty to various different sections. What I don't understand is that you sometimes turn against me and claim I'm pushing "Peruvian POV." For instance, in regards to "Peruheroico.com," when you suggested for me to look for better sources; I did and found better sources supporting the information (There's no more Peruheroico.com in the page). However, instead of taking the new sources and accepting the edits as factual, you begin to claim that the books themselves are not in WP:GF and that they're not reliable. Why don't you want to work with me in finding a solution instead of constantly going against everything I do? Perhaps there's something I'm doing that's bothering you (If I'm doing something wrong, just message me on my talk page; I can't read your mind in order to figure out what's bothering you about my edits)? Or, I don't know! I would want to work on the article along with you, not against you. IMO, you're a more reasonable person to speak to than Keysanger; so can you at least deeply consider this proposal of friendship?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
Ok. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Likeminas,

I am pessimistic regarding the current version of War of the Pacific. We should think about a recovery of a less contentious, older version, as you planned some days ago. I am unable to improve the (english) text directly and there is an obstinate opposition to any change, most of times violating the Wikipedia rules (See Cabal Mediation of Gigs). And till now there are 4 resolved cases but with a high related costs in time and quality of the text.

On the other hand the older version needs also some improvement and a lot of work will be lost. A interesting case for a mediation could be also a consequence, although with the current version I presage not one but multiple mediations.

It is crucial to refuse changes which do not find general consensus.

--Keysanger (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting sourced information is not correct. Likeminas, I have presented my sincerity to you, have followed your suggestions (found book sources), have removed the contentious sources (Peruheroico, etc.), have willingly worked with the "list of problems" that thus far have done little to no change to the original information, and a series of other things demonstrating that there is no wrong intentions from my edits. The current version of the article is much improved from the earlier version. Yes, Keysanger contests almost everything, and you also contest certain sections; but that is essentially how controversial articles tend to develop. By removing information, instead of improving the article we would be "going back" to nowhere. Do not let yourself be influenced by Keysanger, who obviously is attempting to use you as a tool in order to make you delete sourced information from the article. I am sure that you will do what is right Likeminas.


 * However, I did not come here seeking to talk to you about this (I was quite surprised to find Keysanger here attempting to influence you to delete information) suggestion of Keysanger. I was just going to ask you if you could provide a comment on the "Issue Nr. 5 and Nr. 6" section of the article. Dentren has proposed an improved sentence, which I also agree with, but Keysanger keeps claiming that it is "explaining the history." Also, I was going to notify you that issue Nr. 7 is beginning to be discussed, and that Issue Nr. 8 (which deals with Argentina, which I know is a topic of your interest) will soon be discussed also.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss the article on the talk page, shall we??
 * Likeminas (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific, again
Greetings, you undo the correction than I made in the War of the Pacific article, that article contains mainly the Chilean version of that war, and claims fallacies like the "confiscation" of the National Library books and the sack an destruction of Chorrillos and Miraflores by Peruvian soldiers, both events are FACTS, proved by many neutral witnesses, the Peruvian National Library was RANSACKED, the mentioned towns were burned to the ground by the Chilean troops who do not show respect for anything, even the foreigner habitants suffer the Chilean atrocities, I have the sources, but I don´t have much time now to put it in the article, but this is only showing the Chilean offical version of the war, is not neutral and is not acceptable, I was corrected many articles about the War of teh Pacific, and this would be my first priority from now, remember: This article is not longer a Chilean exclusivity, Wikipedia is a free source of knowledge, free from nationalism and lies, this article contains a very important part of our history and it would be neutral and free from lies and questionable sources. Not all the books are good sources. Greetings again and I hope than you understand the importance of the sustain a civilizated talk and neutrality about this delicated issue. --Cloudaoc (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)--Cloudaoc (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * is not longer a Chilean exclusivity, Wikipedia is a free source of knowledge, free from nationalism and lies what a contradictory statement.. Dentren  |  Ta lk  13:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on thr article's talk page. Please let's keep the discussion there.Likeminas (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Cuban packages
Hello Likeminas, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Cuban packages has been removed. It was removed by Luis Napoles with the following edit summary ' (Per template instructions. Important historical event.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Luis Napoles before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
 * You should be aware that anyone can remove a template for any reason. See CONTESTED This warning that you issued was not appropriate and should be retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I did revert that edit and now I listed that article under a better procedure. Likeminas (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rep: Asst. w/ New Editor
Well, the first thing I'd like to say is that I didn't invite this user, "Cloudaloc," into the discussion. I simply welcomed him to it. However, I have invited other editors to come in and help, but none have come. Saying that I invited "Cloudaloc" would be like saying that the "Welcome" Signs in front of stores invited you to enter them (lol).

The second thing I'd like to say is that I'm glad that you also see Keysanger's involvement in these discussions as counter-productive and detrimental. Cloudaloc and Keysanger seem to have the same character, but both hold on to different stances (Keysanger is pro-Chile, and Cloudaloc is pro-Peruvian). I've been reading the discussion between you and Cloudaloc, and I completely understand how you feel (I can tell how you connect him with Keysanger. lol). What can we do?

Well, just as you consider me a reasonable editor, I consider you a reasonable editor as well. The only thing we can do is "unite" (not like the Justice League, but rather to just attempt to work together) and attempt to either "open the minds" of both Keysanger and Cloudaloc in order for them to understand Wiki policy, or do something to get an administrator to help prevent nationalists from destroying Wikipedia articles such as the War of the Pacific. Now I'm telling you this because, despite our previous arguments, I trust you.

While on the subject, I urge you to look at this user page: User:Keysanger/Anklage. Keysanger has made a list of my "bad deeds." Mainly, he has twisted a series of my statements in order to attempt to make them look bad (particularly by taking them out of context), and is even using your "investigation" (as he calls it) which I suppose he hasn't even cosulted you in using. I tell you this in order to show that even though we have been cordially attempting to work along with Keysanger, behind our backs (especially mine) he is setting up a trap in order to take me out of the discussion. If he does this to me, he will surely eventually do it to all other editors who do not agree with his opinions; and then where will this all end up?

Honestly, I wasn't expecting for Cloudaloc to turn into another Keysanger (one already gives me enough of a headache), and I still have hopes that this won't happen. I'll try to talk to him. Yet, please think about what I said. In order to help contain these "counter-productive" editors, all we can do is attempt to work together to promote Wikipedia's standards. Otherwise, we'll get torn down just like how "Luis Napoles" was able to get you in trouble despite it was him who was promoting nationalist partisanship.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your support for deleting List of MIR members...

 * Keep: for the reasons I elaborate upon in the comments below.Moshe-paz (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (A) Firstly, there are already such lists in both the Spanish and English wikipedia project:
 * For example:
 * Missing prisoners of Chile;
 * Lista de los 119 desaparecidos
 * Anexo: Detenidos desaparecidos de Chile
 * Anexo: Extranjeros detenidos desaparecidos de Chile


 * These lists did not provide much information on the cases nor where they referenced to sources - the list placed in the English project had information in Spanish that hadn’t even been translated. In accordance with Wikipedia policy I attempted to improve these lists, firstly by providing an introduction to the one concerning the MIR victims, to subdivide the cases already listed in the project, using a better navigational format and had commenced to add sources to them from which individual biographical articles could be written of them. In many case I provided multiple sources pointing to the level of notability of the individual cases.


 * -B- NOT A MEMROIAL: The term memorial is very ambiguous it means “a reminder of some event or incident.” In essence anything having to do with the memory of history could be deemed a memorial.
 * Albeit, this list of cases are related to a historically period commencing on 9/11, 1973 to the present; many cases have formed part of numerous criminal complaints and judicial actions and hitherto many remain unresolved, some are pending in the tribunals of justice and some are likely to be reactivated as Chile further reforms legislation left by the Pinochet dictatorship. This is not a reminder of an event because many cases involve individuals who are still legally victims of “secuestro permanente.” Because their cases have not been fully resolved and their relatives are still campaigning to bring the perpetrators of the atrocities to justice. These people are often seen in demonstrations with their relatives photographs and images which have almost become part of Chile’s national conscious.


 * There is a fundamental difference between the millions of people exterminated by Stalin and Hitler and the thousands of victims of the Pinochet regime. Whilst Stalin and Hitler applied the strategy of exterminating whole demographic groups or populations under their rule to halt the processes of history, Pinochet opted to exterminate, in a surgical fashion, individuals deemed most likely to prevent the consolidation of his regime. The principle criteria applied by the Pinochet regime in exterminating an opponent was the opponent’s grade of notability in his respective community or field of expertise - this was done to create the biggest social impact and maintain a climate of terror upon the broadest layers of people possible.


 * In essence most of the workers, peasants, actors, editors, cinematographers, physicians, political leaders, student leaders, scientists, foreign nationals, writers, listed where highly notable people.


 * (C) NOTABILITY OF CASES INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY: Most of these cases were initially documented and archived semi-clandestinely by the Roman Catholic Church organisation Vicariate of Solidarity, the work of the Vicariate was legally recognized in the Rettig Report which was officially released in Chile by President Patricio Aylwin in 1991. Further study and investigation was articulated and compiled in the Valech report. Most of these cases have been documented by various media: in film/documentaries, in newspapers around the world, in published books, and in numerous human rights journals. They have been presented in many prominent websites including the website of the United States Institute of Peace (at one stage these cases were available in USIP in html they are now archived in this website as PDF files which makes it hard to retrieve individual cases), in Memoriaviva.com, in Centro de Estudios Miguel Enriquez (CEME) and the website ecomemoria.com is also working on presenting biographies on the cases.


 * Whilst Pinochet was under house arrest in London some of these cases were heard before the parliaments in Europe – cases involving foreign nationals, they have also been the subject of judicial actions and law suits that have been extensively covered by the media.


 * According to John Dinges the victims of the Pinochet regime constitute probably the only case in history in which almost every individual case of human rights abuse that was reported to human rights organisation were meticulously and painstakingly documented and archived.


 * (D) CASES EXPOSE ROLE OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA IN THE PINOCHET REGIME: The Operation colombo or the case of the 119 (sp. Caso de los 119) included in this list has become a major unresolved social scandal exposing the role the mainstream media played under the Pinochet regime in covering up some of the worst atrocities committed by the dictator. The mainstream media principally the newspaper el Mercurio (one of the oldest, most important and prestigious newspaper published in the Spanish language – owned by the Chilean oligarch, Agustín Edwards Eastman) - published a cover up of the extrajudicial killing of up to 119 people in the torture centre of Pinochet in Chile – by presenting them as killings that had occurred in foreign countries. (100 of the 119 were MIR members) The newspaper’s director and editors used doctored photographs and fabricated information provide by Pinochet secret police DINA to present its readership and audience with a campaign of misinformation that the 119 had been killed by their own “communist” organisations outside Chile.


 * (E) CASES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ADVANCEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION OF HUMANITARIAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS: These case led to the application of the judicial thesis of secuestro permanente (permanent kidnapping/abduction) conceived and upheld by the Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia. This was the outcome of the laborious attempt by the Chilean judge to inactivate the Ley de amnistía (1978) (Chile’s Amnesty Act of 1978) that Pinochet established to prevent perpetrators of the worst crimes in his regime from facing prosecution. By redefining the legal status of victims of forced disappearance to that of victims of permanent kidnapping the Chile’s Amnesty Act 1978 was revoked in light of numerous cases involving MIR victims (and others) of the Pinochet regime. Since such crimes had not been officially “committed” but were in essence “ongoing” by the fact that the victims remains had not officially been found and their relatives were still campaigning to know their whereabouts, many members of Pinochet secret police – previously protected by the Amnesty Law - were put on trial and convicted. In English wikipedia there is not even an article on “Secuestro permanente” a judicial tool that will see future heads of state who subject their political opponents to forced disappearances encounter major obstacle in enacting Amnesty laws to protect people who carry out this specific form of crime.


 * These cases also lead to improvements in how judicial systems treat charges of human rights violations and the application of international law by reigniting the debate concerning crimes against humanity unheard since the Nuremberg trials. These cases where also part of Baltazar Garzón initial charges of genocide against Pinochet that indirectly culminated in creating the legal precedent that lifted the diplomatic immunity granted to former heads of state that had historically protected them from being prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The Australian QC Geoffrey Robertson has written extensively on the Pinochet case and the historical significance of this precedent.


 * The importance of the MIR case among other cases related to the Pinochet regime which consist (-ed) of several thousand people rests on the fact that it has had a more profound impact on humanitarian and international law than the Nuremberg trials established to prosecute the Nazis for exterminating millions of human beings. Wherefore, mention the millions of anonymous victims of Stalin that have had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the judicial management of human affairs or the conduct of states.


 * I am sure editor Likeminas (who took part in deleting a previous article I contributed to the project) who is majoring in the field of international law would be more familiar with this material than I.


 * (F) COUNTERPRODUCTIVE POLITICAL AND CULTURAL BIAS: To delete the List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime and not lists such as:
 * List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006
 * List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Iraq
 * List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
 * List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999


 * list that escape my understanding and probably that of 95% of the people on the beautiful planet we share:


 * List of Honorverse characters
 * List of General Hospital miscellaneous characters
 * List of Bobobo bo Bo bobo


 * Lends the project to a cultural and political bias.


 * Finally, given that the original basis on which this list was nominated for deletion is not very well founded or consistent due to the fact that there were already such lists in the project both in the Spanish and the English one - the “consideration for deletion” tag should ideally be removed.


 * Furthermore the following comment introduced in the introduction of the article for deletion page “Indiscriminate list, if one was to be created it should contain only notable kidnappings” by editor Backslash/forwardslash is also not very well founded as I have explained in my comments above most of the people on the list were/are victims of “secuestro permanente” the most notable form of kidnapping, the rest were victims of notable political extrajudicial killings or assassinations.


 * If those who believe the list should still be removed want to delete it he/she/they should ideally nominate it again for deletion but on a different basis for another specific reason – that can be specifically challenged.
 * I emphasize the word ideally because in this project miscarriages of policy seems to be a major weak point of this collaborative encyclopaedia. ______Regards____, Moshe-paz (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing
Sorry about my overly harsh tone. Blame it on being overly defensive with POV-pushers on articles like this and the nature of the internet. There's a lot of work still to be done do improve that article (from all ends of the political spectrum), but your edits are a solid contribution. Notmyrealname (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)