User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 33

boxer Paoli
yes I know what you mean, I looked high and wide for a pic to fill that void and settled for a provisional related filler until I could find something. I think a pic of 1916 London would be appropriate enough as it links directly to what the place looked like when the man received his pro training and won his 5 fight, what do you think? There's just too much text in that area without a pic for fullness. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lolita Lebrón
We lost another one. Oh, man... -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick question; what do you think of using the light-blue version of the flag on the template? -   Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do shortly. Also, I'm not sure, but I believe that the colors in File:Flag of Puerto Rico (Light blue).svg might be wrong. These (another take of these colors) are the shades that I was told years ago to be the original ones, the ones in the file seem a bit more murky. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am trying to edit the file in Paint, but the saved image comes out pixilated for some reason. I'm clearly not very skilled with this program, but I'm certainly up to the task of replacing the flags if someone can fix the file. To be specific, the red is correct, but the current shade of blue looks more like CadetBlue #5F9EA0 or CornflowerBlue #6495ED instead of the more accurate DeepSkyBlue #00BFFF (see "web colors" for the color chart). -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that we should give priority to the issue for the moment. Let's leave it as an observation for the future. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On a side note, I added an image of her here. But for some reason I cannot add it to the infobox for her article. Any takers? Quaz  Gaa  13:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo deletion
Tony, the public domain painted portrait of former Sen. President McKlintock has been tagged for deletion. I think you created the image. Can you look into this. I think it's happened before. Pr4ever (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Under the portrait in his bio there's a red-letter caption that says: This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination. Pr4ever (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And someone (who apparently wants text and no attractive visual elements in wikipedia) eliminated the seal of Secretaries of State from the Sec of State of PR page. Have they nothing else to do?! Pr4ever (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks x 2 and good night! Pr4ever (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cabo Rojo
I know of one website that specifically says "Robert Cofresi" and underneath his name it says "The pirate Cabo Rojo". Just to let you know.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Campaign
Wow, that some pretty interesting info, too bad they don't teach that stuff in "Historia de Puerto Rico" in high school courses, then many people would probably have a different perspective on things. BTW I just created Cathedral of Mayagüez and I nominated it for DKY, thought you might want to take a look at it, it has some interesting facts! El Johnson (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice Tony! Wikipedia needs more Writers like you to expose the real truth and intentions of those trying to hide from the past! Bravo Zulu! QuAz  GaA  15:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sugar (money) and military value... Pathetic excuses to justify their own imperialistic ambition. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Think I fixed it, thanks.El Johnson (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Al Cisneros
Lieutenant Cisneros became the first Hispanic pilot to serve with the Blue Angels in 1975. I could not find an article on him yet. QuAz GaA  13:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

re:Helen Rodriguez-Trias
Tony.She is a great person and we need more role models like her. BTW, thanks for re-uploading the image of Elias Beauchamp and the additions to the PR Campaign article. "Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Saludos, --Jmundo (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Polit Stat of PR
Hi, would you check out this edit >>> THIS. I say, what's the use of this sort of infobox if it really presents no snapshot-type of useful information. I am considering removal if it won't serve any significantly useful purpose. Had you seen this bilateral infobox used before? Thanks for your comments, Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PR's "foremost military historian"
Just saw this August 10 posting in Facebook and haven 't seen any mention of it in your user page:

Secretary of State of Puerto Rico Kenneth D. McClintock's Welcoming Remarks at the Memorial Wall National Commission on the American Latino Museum August 10, 2010 First of all, on behalf of Governor Fortuño, welcome to Puerto Rico and, in this case, welcome to one of the most hallowed symbols of Puerto Rican life, our Memorial Wall. We stand before over a thousand names chiseled in stone. Each name representing a living human being from Puerto Rico who gave his or her life, not for the well-being of their fellow Puerto Ricans, but for the well-being of all Americans. Each name, represents a face, each face a lifestory, and each lifestory ends in the tragedy of a premature death. Each name on this wall was nominated by a person or an organization that could attest to the qualifications to be included in this hallowed place. In most cases, the names were submitted by the Defense Department. In other cases, other organizations or individuals were able to connect a name to Puerto Rico. '''There is one man, whom I consider Puerto Rico’s foremost military historian, not because of his academic background in history, which he lacks, not because of a large series of books, which he hasn’t authored, but because of his devotion to making sure that Puerto Ricans contribution to military history, under the Spanish and American flags, are known, because of his integrity in sourcing and verifying absolutely everything before putting it out as a fact, and because of his resourcefulness in choosing a new media, Wikipedia to, as President Kennedy would trumpet, to “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike,” that Puerto Ricans have made major contributions to military history. '''That man, Antonio Santiago---Tony the Marine---as most Puerto Ricans, no longer lives in Puerto Rico. In his case, he chose to live in Phoenix, Arizona, long before S.B. 1070. Through his birth as a natural-born American citizen, and his service in Vietnam, he shouldn’t have to answer to any racial-profiling law enforcement official in his state who didn’t have to serve as he did. The Constitution he defended in Vietnam and for which the men and women whose names stand in silence before us today, does not require him to answer. But whether he lives in Arizona, or New York or Puerto Rico, Tony Santiago’s life work documenting Puerto Rico’s military history is reaching millions every day through the internet.''' '''As you gather in Puerto Rico to reach consensus on how best to immortalize the history of Latinos in America… remember this Wall… '''remember the fallen Latino in each American war… and remember and engage those who, like Tony the Marine, would be more than willing to help etch in the conscience of all Americans with the same force that the names before us were etched in stone the heroism and the dedication of millions of Latinos who have served in America’s armed forces. On behalf of Gov. Fortuño… on behalf of nearly 4 million Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico… on behalf of over four million Puerto Ricans, like Tony the Marine, who live in the states… and on behalf of the over one thousand men and women whose names silently honor us from this Wall… welcome to Puerto Rico, the place where America becomes a Caribbean nation.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=423585291337

Congrats! Pr4ever (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow Tony, that's great! Puerto Rico’s foremost military historian!! A la verdad que eres un ejemplo a seguir. Honor a quien honor merece! El Johnson (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What?! So I went through the trouble (slight, though) of joining Facebook so I could read the speech, when it was posted here all along? :)
 * Thank you for the link, Tony. I learned or re-learned about the efforts to build the Museum and just came from their website.
 * McKlintock's words seem genuine, and as regards you, they're very deserved. We're glad you're here at WP, Tony. SamEV (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SamEV, the "trouble" you went through in joining Facebook to read the speech would be an even better investment if you take a look at a few other of McKlintock's speeches archived in his "Notes" section, such as http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=414780421337 and particularly http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=399244506337, whether you agree with all he says or not, or whether he speaks well or simply has talent in choosing good wordsmiths as speechwriters. Pr4ever (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's great stuff, and I don't say that just because I probably agreed with everything he said. Clearly he cares deeply about equality for all, the definition of Puerto Rico's political status, and the honor due to armed forces veterans. And he has an interesting perspective about whether a common language is enough for creating unity. SamEV (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Zulu Tony! Impressive. QuAz GaA  13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

All Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients now have articles
I just wanted to let you know that today, with the creation of the Christopher Nugent (Medal of Honor) article, all Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients now have an article on Wikipedia. If you do find one thats missing though please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speech
Great tribute Tony, glad to see you were recognized for your tremendous work. I enjoyed reading the well deserved words in your honor. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

facebook
Hi Tony - I have just sent you a facebook friend request!  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Images
Tony, what do you know about our ability to use (copy) images from Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña (HERE) into Wikipedia articles? I believe Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña is part of Univ of Puerto Rico Rio Piedras. Isn't UPR a PR Govt "agency" and thus we can copy images from there as with the other stuff that McClintock's office released/authorized recently? I haven't double-checked this but I believe a good number of those images came from El Mundo and are thus no longer under Copyright protection -- with BDP simply preserving them rather than extending their copyright. A good amount of those images would represent a significant addition to a many Wikipedia articles. Please share you knowledge of that issue, and your thoughts in general. (BTW: Thanks for your facebook invitation; I just returned from a few days away and will be catching up with things shortly.) Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the Biblioteca Digital's webpage answers the question when it simply requests that when using text or images ("alguna imagen") from the collection, they be correctly referenced:

"CITAS

Para citar las colecciones o alguna imagen, por favor incluya el nombre completo de la colección, su URL (dirección electrónica del sitio), la fecha de acceso y cualquier otra información relevante."

It also restates that their resources are free ("libremente") to be used by the studious, researchers, students and other persons interested in the history, the politics, the ecnomy, social and cultural issues of Puerto Rico from the 19th century to the present:

"Estos recursos están disponibles libremente para los estudiosos, investigadores, estudiantes y otras personas interesadas en la historia, la política, la economía, los asuntos sociales y culturales de Puerto Rico desde el siglo XIX hasta el presente."

Perhaps someone should contact the President of UPR or, if not, McKlintock, with whom Tony seems to have a good relationship. Pr4ever (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---
 * I agree with Pr4ever,

You should upload the images with the following for now: http://bibliotecadigital.uprrp.edu/ Source states images are PD in the following:
 * Description
 * Source

"Estos recursos están disponibles libremente para los estudiosos, investigadores, estudiantes y otras personas interesadas en la historia, la política, la economía, los asuntos sociales y culturales de Puerto Rico desde el siglo XIX hasta el presente." These resources are available freely for the scholars, investigators, students and other people interested in the history, the politics, the economy, the cultural and social matters of Puerto Rico since the 19th century to the present.

Images obtained from the defunct newspaper "El Mundo" therefore said license also applies:
 * License

Tony the Marine (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

THANKS FOR RESPONDING on my page. My response below is lengthy becuase it is commesurate with the volume and significance of this irreplaceable collection of images pertinent to the PR wikiproject. I did not write this response in one sitting; you may not want to try to digest it all in one sitting either. And finally, I will respond on this page (Tony's), and not on mine, in case this discussion develops into a multi-editor discussion. Please respond on this page, not on my page, to have the full thread of the discussion at one location only (unless Tony wants to move it now to some other page like the PR wikiproject discussion page).

In any event, here is my reaction to the observations from both you and PR4ever: I would love to believe you are both right but I am not entirely convinced that your interpretations are correct. Here are my reasons:


 * 1. The bottom of the main page of the Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña ("BDP") (HERE) says "© 2006-2009 Universidad de Puerto Rico".
 * That entry alone should be enough cause for some concern. For instance, if BDP (or, to be exact, UPR) is going to allow unrestricted copy and use (commercial - as Wikipedia requires - included), then why Copyright it? Of course, it could be speculated the Copyright ("CR") refers to teh site and not to the images (individually or as a set). But the argument could also be had that, How do we know that?

"Se advierte al usuario que las leyes de propiedad intelectual pueden restringir el uso de estas imágenes. El usuario asume todos los riesgos sobre las posibles violaciones a los derechos de autor. "El material previamente publicado que se incluye puede tener derechos de autor exigibles. La reproducción y distribución inautorizadas de dicho material pueden ser violatorias cuando éste lleva un aviso claramente visible de reserva de derechos. La Universidad de Puerto Rico no se hace responsable por el uso no autorizado de dicho material por parte de usuarios que acceden a este sitio y tales usuarios serán individual y exclusivamente responsables ante el titular de los derechos por dicho uso. La Universidad de Puerto Rico tampoco asume responsabilidad alguna por el uso no autorizado de material que contenga derechos válidos cuando el titular de los mismos no ha fijado un aviso de reserva de derechos claramente visible al mismo. "Los recursos contenidos en este sitio Web son para uso educativo solamente, por lo que se puede reproducir una copia de estos materiales sin autorización previa, con la condición de que se provean los créditos correspondientes. "Este sitio contiene materiales con derechos de autor cuyo uso no ha sido específicamente autorizado por sus titulares. Hacemos disponible estos recursos como parte de nuestra responsabilidad de promover y facilitar el estudio, la investigación, la comprensión y el aprecio de la historia y cultura puertorriqueña. Entendemos que ello constituye uso justo (fair use) de estos recursos, a tenor con la Sección 107 de la Ley de Derechos de Autor de los Estados Unidos http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. "Si desea hacer uso de las imágenes contenidas en este sitio para publicación o cualquier otro que rebase el uso justo, debe obtener el permiso de los titulares. "Aunque no requerimos notificación previa de los usuarios para propósitos educativos, agradeceremos que nos informen sobre los trabajos y proyectos en los cuales se están utilizando estos recursos. Por favor comuníquese con nosotros.
 * 2. The bottom of the same BDP main page (HERE) also has a link to the words "Derechos de author" and following that LINK leads to the following declaration (from here on I will not translate from Spanish and will assume we are all at least bilingual enough to follow the discussion):DERECHOS DE AUTOR
 * Wow! I think this is pretty much cause for significant concern. At a minimum, it leaves plenty of room for ambiguity. I can give examples but I think they are obvious. As in most cases of copyright and, in general terms, I suspect what BDP wants is to share these images with as many people as possible, including freely copying them to other sites (including Wikipedia) but, as with most cases of copyright, I suspect what BDP does NOT want is for someone to commercially exploit images that represent the work of someone else.


 * 3. The images from El Mundo (I obviosuly did not check all of them) themselves claim full copyright ("Todos los derechos Reservados"), but are they always correct? Check, for example, this one of a new cemetery in the El Yeso sector in Ponce.
 * Clearly we could speculate one of several things with images like this such as, "The CR status wasn't correctly recorded", or "It's not possible: El Mundo images were already PD before BDP, UPR, etc, got the images, becuase their CR had expired and they never renewed it", or "The technician doing the transcription from paper to digital form was not versed in CR law and didn't know what s/he was doing", or "Yeah, but most likely what happened was that in digitazing these images, the default entry in the database for the "Derechos" field was "Todos los derechos reservados" and they didn't bother to investigate the real CR status of each of the thousands of images that were being digitized". However, herein lies my concern: these would all be speculations, and speculation provide no protection.


 * 4. It is true that the statement is made that "Estos recursos están disponibles libremente para los estudiosos, investigadores, estudiantes y otras personas interesadas en la historia, la política, la economía, los asuntos sociales y culturales de Puerto Rico desde el siglo XIX hasta el presente."
 * But it is also true that it could be argued that the keyword here ("libremente") simply means, the obvious, that you don't have to PAY to access them. Free access is, after all, one of the pillars of any physical public library. But free ACCESS is not the same as permission to COPY ("the right to copy" or "Copy right"). Physical public libraries have always prided themselves in providing free ACCESS to the general public; but we all know that physical libraries have always forbidden the COPYING of any of the books, etc., they own because they are copyrighted materials.
 * It could, in addition, also be argued that the word "libremente" is being used to mean (as it could mean) "openly", that is, "without boundaries", "without the inconvenience of jumping thru hoops" or "via the freedom provided by the Internet as opposed to having to physically drive down into UPR's Rio Piedras library". That line of reasoning.


 * 5. To complicate BDP's statements about CRs even more, let's remember that only some of the images in the BDP are from El Mundo, others (see HERE) are by Mario Brau, A. Moscioni, Jaime Benitez Rexach, the Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration, and the Biblioteca de Arquitectura collection (which alone includes a number of authors [and presumably CR holders]).
 * One obvious question (and ONE reason I said ambiguity earlier) could be, Is Mario Brau and the others the reason why BDP says "las leyes de propiedad intelectual PUEDEN (as in "PODRIAN") restringir el uso de estas imágenes", or is BDP making that statement because it simply wanted to "wash their hands" any possible future implication in CR violation by the users of the BDP collection? Again, ambiguity.


 * 6. To give one additional example of ambiguity, take, for example, this image from BDP. The BDP text accompanying the image says the author of the image is "Policia de Puerto Rico", yet also says in the "Relacion" field "Colección de Fotos del Periódico El Mundo."
 * In trying to determine the CR status of the image, some valid questions would be, (1) "Did Policia de Puerto Rico take that picture, but then made it available to El Mundo for publishing (with the obvious implied understanding by its author, Policia de Puerto Rico, that El Mundo was going to benefit commercially from it, and thus, in effect, giving up its CR right)?" (2) Is the entry "Author: Policia de Puerto Rico" merely a statement as to the "source" of the image for tracking purposes, and not for Copyright purposes? (3) Did, back in 1967, the year when the photo was taken, did either Police de Puerto Rico or El Mundo care any about the issue of Copyrights, when (a) the ability to profit commercially from digitazing pictures did not yet exists, and (b) for most people, even the ability to photocopy a picture from a physical nuewspaper was beyond their reach both logistically (there weren't any Xerox machines around yet) or financially (remember the cost of xeroxing when it did become possible years later?) and (c)to profit fiancially from a single photo was next to impossible, a more realistic scenario was to profit financially from a collection of photos.


 * 7. At this location, BDP says: "Los temas o fotografías de la Colección del Periódico El Mundo no disponibles aún en la Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña, pueden solicitarse directamente en la sede del Proyecto, cita en el primer piso de la Biblioteca José M. Lázaro del Recinto de Río Piedras de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. Para mayor información sobre los servicios relacionados con la Colección El Mundo, puede comunicarse por correo electrónico - mmtorres@uprrp.edu - o por teléfono 787-764-0000, x .7551, 7552, 7395."
 * Are you saying that the President of UPR's or McClintock's response to a request of "We would like to have a better photo of Roberto Sanchez Vilella for use in Wikipedia as the one we have here is not very good, can you get it to us from BDP?" would be something like, "Oh sure, here it is in digital form, and by the way, you can use it as you wish, plus make as many digital or otherwise copies as you want plus even sell it and distribute it for your own personal financial gain." I doubt it... and, yet, this is really what the PD License recommended above actually implies. I am just trying to illustrate a point.


 * 8. We know (from here and here, and here) that El Imparcial images are PD.
 * But do we know that El Mundo images are also PD for reasons identical to El Imparcial's? Or are we claiming El Mundo's images to be PD for other reason(s)?


 * 9. As for, "CITAS: Para citar las colecciones o alguna imagen, por favor incluya el nombre completo de la colección, su URL (dirección electrónica del sitio), la fecha de acceso y cualquier otra información relevante."
 * It can be argued that this is not a license to indiscriminately COPY and benefit COMMERCIALLY, but that these are instead the instructions for a user who has ALREADY agreed to the CR terms of the BDP site to follow in order to correctly comply with the requirements of the use of an image. In particular, it can be argued that the person or entity wanting to use any image from the BDP collection must comply with the 4 points above, AND that copyright notices constitute "informacion relevante" (last point) and thus must be included in the one single copied image. In other words, the CR notice must be passed along, which in the case of those BDP images that say "Todos los derechos reservados". This, in effect, would translate into an inability to upload the image into Wikipedia at all, per wikipedia Strict image upload policies.


 * 10. NOW, allow me play Devil's Advocate with #2 above:
 * a. "Se advierte al usuario que las leyes de propiedad intelectual pueden restringir el uso de estas imágenes. El usuario asume todos los riesgos sobre las posibles violaciones a los derechos de autor.
 * It could be claimed that here DBP is stating, quite clearly, that "User Beware, some of these images are copyrighted: you are responsible for any CR law violation."
 * b. "El material previamente publicado que se incluye puede tener derechos de autor exigibles. La reproducción y distribución inautorizadas de dicho material pueden ser violatorias cuando éste lleva un aviso claramente visible de reserva de derechos. La Universidad de Puerto Rico no se hace responsable por el uso no autorizado de dicho material por parte de usuarios que acceden a este sitio y tales usuarios serán individual y exclusivamente responsables ante el titular de los derechos por dicho uso. La Universidad de Puerto Rico tampoco asume responsabilidad alguna por el uso no autorizado de material que contenga derechos válidos cuando el titular de los mismos no ha fijado un aviso de reserva de derechos claramente visible al mismo.
 * It could be argued that here DBP is detailing that this is CR material. It could be interpreted as, "Hey, There are images that clearly say 'Todos los derechos reservados'. We are providing these images for your own intellectual edification. It should not be assumed that becasue these materials are provided here, that they are not covered by CR law. If you, the user, decide to copy/download them, you do so at your own peril. You, and not UPR, will be responsible for how you use these images when we have already given you information on their CR status. In fact, you, and not UPR, will be responsible for how you use these images when the author of such image does have CR rights on said image, but our CR warning on said image is incorrectly stated."
 * c. "Los recursos contenidos en este sitio Web son para uso educativo solamente, por lo que se puede reproducir una copia de estos materiales sin autorización previa, con la condición de que se provean los créditos correspondientes.
 * It could be argued that here DBP is saying, "these materials are NOT provided for commercial purposes; they are provided only for educational purposes." As such, you can make only one single copy of these images without prior written permission, but only so long as you provide all of the credits that we demand you provide. In addition it could then be argued that, as images in Wikipedia are provided w/o any preconditions demanding only noncommercial use only (i.e, images in Wikipedia CAN be used for personal gain), images from BDP are not eligible for upload to Wikipedia becuase such images demand that they not be used commercially.
 * d. "Este sitio contiene materiales con derechos de autor cuyo uso no ha sido específicamente autorizado por sus titulares. Hacemos disponible estos recursos como parte de nuestra responsabilidad de promover y facilitar el estudio, la investigación, la comprensión y el aprecio de la historia y cultura puertorriqueña. Entendemos que ello constituye uso justo (fair use) de estos recursos, a tenor con la Sección 107 de la Ley de Derechos de Autor de los Estados Unidos http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107.
 * It could be argued that all DBP is saying here is that "intermixed among the images provided in the BDP are images for which their authors have not specifically claimed their CR rights. Yet the fact the author hasn't claimed those rights does not mean s/he doesn't possess those rights. It is our (UPR's) position that by uploading such images from elsewhere into our BDP servers, that such action constitutes 'Fair Use' given our intention to make these images available for purposes other than to gain financial benefit for ourselves (for UPR)."
 * e. "Si desea hacer uso de las imágenes contenidas en este sitio para publicación o cualquier otro que rebase el uso justo, debe obtener el permiso de los titulares.
 * It could be claimed that here DBP (being the educational institution that it is) is informing that the only way to circumvent the 'fair use' clause of CR law is by obtaining written permission from the image's CR owner stating that permission for use beyond fair use is granted."
 * f. "Aunque no requerimos notificación previa de los usuarios para propósitos educativos, agradeceremos que nos informen sobre los trabajos y proyectos en los cuales se están utilizando estos recursos. Por favor comuníquese con nosotros."
 * Here it can be stated that UPR is saying "Look, we don't require you to notify us of your use of a single copy of these images for the only allowed use (educational), but we would appreciate if you did let us know in what educational endeavor you are using these images/materials so we may learn, for our own edification and knowledge, of the creative ways these materials are being use so we may find vindication for the time and effort we have put into creating this digital library."

While the temptation might exist to argue anyone of the 9 points (plus 10 a-f) above, I believe that the only valid test of whether or not an image from the BDP is in the public domain, is whether or not it passes EACH and ALL of the previous 9 (plus 10 a-f) "tests".

With all of this said. I am inclined to solicit that if someone, (that means you, TONY) if someone can get explicit written permission to copy any of the images in the BDP into Wikipedia, we could then categorically say that they are in the Publci Domain.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whew! If Pulitzer prizes were given out for Wikipedia writings, Mercy11 earned one today!  Tony, you're going to have to use your contacts to get this one resolved! Pr4ever (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the best thing would be to find out what the is UPR's official policy in regard to the images, but it may take some time. I will try, howver for the meantime our best bet would be to not upload the images. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From further investigating their about page, some interesting comments can be made about the PD status: "'The Digital Library of the University of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico began with a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH-PA-50176-03) awarded to the Library System of Rio Piedras Campus in May 2003 and culminated with the inauguration in February 2007. The project, sponsored in part by the NEH and called Puerto Rican Heritage Digital Library Project (PRHDLP), was intended to make accessible to the public and preserve valuable documents a variety of Puerto Ricans who are part of the bibliography of the Puerto Rican Collection Library System . These will include a selection of photographs from the years 1940 to 1968 belonging to the collection of the newspaper El Mundo. Graphically documented the years of economic transformation, political, social and cultural development of Puerto Rico.'" Thus the Program was part of a Federal Sub-grant (like PRSHPO). Also: "' Executive Order 91-39 the Governor of Puerto Rico that guides the implementation of this project, provides that it be offered to the public by electronic means, while conserving and preserving for enrichment and enjoyment of the Puerto Rican people. Periodically add images covering 71 years of publication of this important newspaper in the collection named 'Photo of the newspaper El Mundo-General.''"  Which I think is sufficient to merit an OTRS permission for all EL Mundo images.  Thoughts?  QuAz  GaA  16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quazgaa, I don't think it is enough, but maybe some one can try. I am not experienced with OTRS as well as others here. It seemed Tony was saying earlier he would try and find out what is UPR's official policy in regard to the images. Tony, have you had any contact that might take us to gain permission to use? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, pero nada. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

re:
Mi hermano, felicitaciones. No me sorprende pues tu labor en Wikipedia es algo grande. Gracias por tus palabras, y sobre tu pregunta me gustaría tener mas tiempo, y paciencia para contribuir al proyecto cosa que ahora mismo me faltan. --Jmundo (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PR article, lead
Hello again, Puerto Rico's article is going thru an edit war since the term 'self governing' was taken from the main lead, as we know this lead was the result of long term consensus and work between wikipedians which includes you, because of this i had assumed the main lead was protected but seems it is not. As you know the term 'self governing' is a fact since UN took Puerto Rico out of the Non self governing list in 1953, this fact gives clarity and detail to the lead, this term is used also and recognized as you know by other encyclopedias, reference books and also by the US gov. (see Factbook). --vertical (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Map 1898
Thought you might find this map interesting. [http://bibliotecadigital.uprrp.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/MapasRaros&CISOPTR=47&CISOBOX=1&REC=14 	Map of Puerto Rico, showing line of march of General Schwan's Expedition from Ponce and Yauco to crossing of Río Prieto, August 9-15, 1898. ] El Johnson (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

hope this works:

Sources:
 * Historical Map of the Spanish-American War: Puerto Rico 1898
 * Puerto Rico bajo las dos banderas

I was going to replace the map in the article but I thought you should take a look at it before since you are the one that has developed the article. El Johnson (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I also found the two flags map interesting and created our own version with the 1898 borders



thought this last one can be added to the Treaty of Paris of 1898 section of the article. El Johnson (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Uploaded new versions of both maps: Rio Piedras was its own municipio, and Guaynabo did not exist, its barrios were divided between Bayamon and Rio Piedras. Shanged maps to show this.El Johnson (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Dude, how old are you? B-Machine (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just asking. I saw your pictures and it sparked my curiosity. B-Machine (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Campaign ending
At the end of the extraordinarily informative Puerto Rican Campaign article, I saw the following:

In 1952, the archipelago's status was reviewed, and the Estado Libre Associado, a variation of self-governing commonwealth, was implemented.[56][57]

I would suggest editing that for several reasons:

(1) it is a contentious matter whether the "status" was reviewed (2) most Puerto Ricans, independentistas plus estadistas, don't believe that "Estado Libre Asociado... was implemented" but that the body politic was simply renamed. (3) the 1952 are of very little relevance to the PR campaign of 1898, except to provide a bit of post-historical context (4) the two references provide no support to the statements that the "status was reviewed" or that "the Estado Libre Asociado... was implemented"; they only attest to the fact that a constitution came into force that provides for local issues and renames the body politic and does not address the political status between PR and the US

I would suggest something along the lines of: "On July 25, 1952, a local constitution [56][57] providing for local governmental matters came into force" or something to that effect. Pr4ever (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great edit! I just added date of first gubernatorial election and minor stylistic edits.  Thanks. Pr4ever (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship suggestions
Rather than:

Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico were given a restricted U.S. citizenship. This is due to the fact that federal electoral law does not grant a vote to any citizen who does not live in, or qualify as an absentee resident in, one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. Thus, people who have always lived in Puerto Rico cannot vote in federal elections, but people born in Puerto Rico and living in a state or in DC can vote. See also: Voting rights in Puerto Rico

...I would suggest:

Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico have been given U.S. citizenship. United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico, whether born there or not, are not residents of a state or the District of Columbia and, therefore, do not qualify to vote, personally or through an absentee ballot, in federal elections. See also: Voting rights in Puerto Rico" Pr4ever (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Roads Portal Links

 * I moved the portal discussion to here: WT:USRD

Judge Jose A. "Cheo" Diaz (Retired), Radio Pioneer/Announcer
Tony, thank-you for your offer to assist with reference to the Wikipedia cite. Firstly, I read your biographical information and your service to the Marine Corps and in Vietnam is admirable as is your dedication and service in developing and maintaining a Puerto Rican resource library on the web. I am submitting some biographical information in the hope that it will meet the Wikipedia requirements for inclusion in the Puerto Rican cite. My parents were born in Puerto Rico. I was born in New York City. The information I submitted can be found on my user page and can be independently substantiated. I served in the Manhattan D.A.'s Office as did Justices Edwin Torres and Sonia Sotomayor among others. I also attended Columbia University with Angelo Falcon, Carlos De Jesus and Carlos DeLeon. In addition to my legal profession, Carlos DeLeon, Carlos DeJesus and I pioneered "Latin Music Proramming" at Columbia University and on the FM signal from 1970-2001. My radio program "The Mambo Machine" is the longest running Latin Music Radio Show and continues to be heard today. I also announced the NY Yankees & Mets in Spanish over Radio WADO-AM and "La Serie Del Caribe/Carribbean Beisbol Championship" over the Madison Square Garden T.V. Network. I sat on the Boards of Aspira and the Puerto Rican Bar Association as well as other civic and cultural organizations. I have been the subject of articles and interviews in the New York Times, New York Daily News, El Diario-LaPrensa, Latin New York Magazine, Latin Beat Magazine, WKCR Guide, Univision TV Show "Primer Impacto" et al. It would be an honor to be included in the Wikipedia cite of Puerto Ricans. Please explain the process and requirements. Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheodiaz (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheo, I will look into it soon. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheo, I wrapped up a few things that I had pending; Send me an e-mail and I'll tell what I need. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Speech
Hey Tony, its great to see that you are still getting recognition for a life of hard work and dedication towards our nation. You truly are a great man, it is an honor for me to be able to call you my friend. I haven't been around lately, my PC is still not working properly, but I just needed to build an article for our first Olympic gold medalist, Emmanuel Rodríguez. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

addition to list of notable Puerto Ricans: Bavi Edna Rivera, first hispanic woman Episcopal Bishop in America
Help, I'm a total newby trying to put one of my favorite humans on this list, and I've no idea how to provide verification for her. Most of my awareness of her being made bishop came from the on line Episcopal News Service and from talking with her at the Diocese of Olympia (206-325-4200), I wouldn't know what magazines or newspapers would have reported on her ordination, but I could send you a DVD of the ceremony. Her father was also an Episcopal Bishop, and was of Puerto Rican descent. She has now retired, I believe, and I have once again misplaced her address. Apologies for possibly wasting your time, but she is a great soul and belongs on the list. On a totally different subject, have you had a look at Hans Schmidt's Maverick Marine, General Smedley Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History? I'd be interested in your opinion of the book, and of the man. Thanks. Tjensen66 (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bavi Edna Rivera, now that is an article that I can do, but first I have a couple of things to wrap up. Now in regard to General Smedley Butler, I haven't read the book, but I do know his story. He is one of those few people that I admire in the sense that he stood up for what he believed was the right thing, regardless of the outcome. He was one of those true American heroes that few people even remember and much less know about. Can you imagine, a group of wealthy industrialists had approached him to lead a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt? Tony the Marine (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PAC
Tony, like the Pedro Albizu Campos infobox before, the infobox for the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party has no space for more info such as the name of the current president. This (name) was widely published at LL's death. Can you do your magic and get there something like "President = Francisco Torres"? Other things could eventually be added there as well. SAMPLE Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hum, I was thinking it should have more or less (obviously maybe less) what the other shave. For example, PPD. Don't you think? Mercy11 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks!!!!!!!! Mercy11 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hila Levy
Tony, the friendly IP from Columbus, Ohio is editing from an army.mil domain. I left a warning and a "share IP" template in the IP talk page. Saludos, --Jmundo (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Paoli
Hi, Tony. I've restored the blanking of the article as I'm afraid that what I quoted was just one paragraph. The content you restored, for instance, included the following:

You can find that paragraph on page 6 of the pdf. If you want to go ahead and restore to the last verifiably clean, I'm afraid it's this edit. I believe that most if not all of the content added here is copied from that source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to have been speaking to one another at the same time. :) The article is not in danger of being deleted, in spite of the language on the notice. If the permission or public domain can't be verified for the content, it'll be rolled back to the last edit before that content was introduced. Again, if you want to roll it back now, you can certainly do so, but we'll probably be revision deleting the text unless I can verify that it's PD. There's quite a lot of it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony, the information is PD. It comes from an article hosted by nps, an agency of the federal government of the USA. The site is not copyrighted for that reason. Further it was the text that was copied, not the NPS form on which the text sits. The text itself is also PD. Its origin is the PR SHPO, an agency of the Government of Puerto Rico. There a OTRS from the current Secretary of State of the Government of Puerto Rico stating that Govt of PR information is PD. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, in reference to requesting a hold on the GA review, why don't you take the driver's seat on this matter, and I will support you in any way I can. You know your way around this place better than me, and I think the process will be more expeditious if you agree to take the lead. If I must do it because I was the one posting the GA review request, then so be it, and I'll try do my best. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, As you know I have taken a back seat on this whole matter motivated in great measure by my inexperience. Admittedly I don't get much credit if this led to damaging(?) what otherwise appeared to be a very good article. In any event, hopefully I will learn something good from this, and I don't mean to be more careful in my interpretation of PD (that's already learned obviously), but in terms of what will ultimately come out of this: A reviewer I once got in a totally different matter many moons ago was very heavy handed even after I did everything s/he asked and, in the end, the only solution he always had was the same he had from the start: the nuclear option. Trust me, I did everything. Knowing how well you work, in the end I will learn if any future interactions with the CR reviewers are worth anything other than giving up from the beginning.  (I would be interested in seeing stats as to how many articles flagged are CR violations make out "alive".) My speculation is that the reviewers are simply afraid to approve -anything- that was flagged with CR problems out of fear that their judgement might later be questioned by someone else.  As your contribs show you are much more experienced here than I, you will know best, but for starters I would suggest the article just brought put back to the DEDB version suggested above, and just left there.  I believe that's the best hope for saving the article. Hope this helps, Mercy11 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, I've now passed it (see Talk:Antonio Paoli/GA1 for comments). Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I should had written b4 but guess I was so speechless I needed time to recuperate! I humbly congratulate you on this achievement which I thought would never occur. Mercy11 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Huracanes
Hi Tony, could you please move back 1876 San Felipe hurricane to the name I created it with: San Felipe Hurricane. I have explained the reasons here: User talk:Hurricanehink.

Also if you have a chance could you take a look at a related situation here: User talk:HurricaneSpin.

Nada me dejas saber, y como siempre si estoy mal me dices. saludos. El Johnson (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

oh, you are right, the name I had given it was San Felipe hurricane. lower case H.El Johnson (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you are a great help as always. El Johnson (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Slight error on your user page
"Desi Arnez" should be "Arnaz". How are you doing? I thought of you when I ran across another USMC Wikipedian while discussing commas (AYSM?). User:Trfasulo has a good sense of humor, especially for a former Marine officer (around 1972–76). Go to his external personal page to see his real and fake military service. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't read the speech because I don't have a Facebook logonid, and don't plan to get one. Sorry. Stay well! Chris the speller (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes
An editor continues to revert edits I make to a Discussion I am participating in. He seems to think that he's got a Right to do this. I say that by WP policy he cannot do that, even if I say "dead dog" (or, for that matter, even if I put some obscenity -- which is not the case here anyway!), no one can unilaterally and single-handedly change MY entries. My experience at WP is that if someone wants to change my contributions to a Discussion or Talk page, they do so only following established protocols. He's failed to do that. Aside from the fact that he is also participating in the discussion there (and which, thus, by any measure, is poor judgement in his part anyway to mess with the edits of an editor that opposes his position in the matter under discussion), he is obfuscated with something he calls "!votes" and claiming there are "customs and morés" to justify his reverts. My position is, customs and mores don't count in this situation, what counts are the proven and long-established WP policies. I just want to know what you think about this? I am not here canvassing for support, instead want to know from an experienced editor like you what your thoughts are w/o condeming either side personally. BTW, via summary comments I have asked him to stop 3 times already, and even left him a message on his Talk page (this one while leaving his last revert of my edits alone as a sign of goodwill/good faith) in an attempt to seeking that we work together. He didn't respond. I have categorized his actions as "disruptive" as he should concentrate in participating in the subject of the discussion and leave his personal issues at the door and my edits alone. So again, what are your thoughts on this? Anything I can learn from your greater familiarity with WP will be appreciate. (PD: A certain other editor --who for all I know could very well be his buddy returning him a favor!!! -- tried to interject into my proposal for dialogue with the original editor, and I told him to pls stay out) Thanks Mercy11 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, the |delete decision for PRPP is non-sense. We had all of our rationale properly covered by Wiki policies. This was even evidenced by the large amount of debate from the other side (If they were so sure they were right from the start, why continue fighting it with your teeth as the opposing side did?) They even made sure to use a "Russian" for a closing administrator, as if we didn't know better than to believe these Russian speakers are no more than mere hardcore conservative Americans in disguise. The closing admin didn't even provide a decent rationale: where else for heaven's sake do you provide a 1-line rationale for a debate that lasted 2 weeks and took over 140K of space? I'd dare say the closing admin did not even read past the norminator's rationale, sticking to the 'setting of precedent' fallacy. Hey, it doesn't take |5 minutes to read thru and process all the info in that debate; this admin came with his own bias: he shouldn't have gotten involved in the closing. In addition, admins are not permitted to close debates based on rules they make up on the fly. Are we going to give up our fight becuase 1 more blind mice decides to look the other way from truth? I say we take our debate to appeal. What do you say? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was also disappointed. The Closing admin did not establish any rationale for deletion of the category.  Just because you say its POV is not a valid reason for deletion. IMO, the editors who voted for deletion did not properly argue their reasoning.  Also, I believe that a consensus was not reached.  This was not addressed by the closing admin at all.  Anyways, Moving on to continue to improve and contribute rather than the alternative.  Take Care.  QuAz  GaA  19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, instructions for a Deletion Review all seem oriented towards article pages. For example, how do you post the indicated template,

in a category page??? Besides, even if you could, how can you post it into a category page that no longers exists, Category:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners? (a Cydebot Moved the category Puerto Rican Political Prisoners to Puerto Rican prisoners and detainees "per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 24" the same night that the closing admin did his thing.)

Humm,, I am not convinced I am in the right place. Are you aware of a page just for category deletions? Maybe yes? Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, the Category deletion review question, does not appear to be getting anywhere after being listed for 5 days. I don't want to sound impatient but I think 5 days is long enough wait. Should we try something else? What do you think? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Margenat
Found an Image Tony, Also, the Image was part of a Claridad article which you may use to further improve upon the article if not used already. QuAz GaA  16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings
Hey, hope all is well. There is a typo here. Greetings, Mercy11 (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

David Zayas
A recent vandalism of David Zayas's article has been happening by an ignorant editor who is removing David's Puerto Rican ancestry and said he is plainly "American". Can you provide some feedback to the article like I did ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Zayas ). I discussed the topic of mainland Puerto Ricans to him, but he is vandalising articl. Probably some redneck.--XLR8TION (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fyi...similar issue here. QuAz  GaA  20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I need to, but I noticed I cannot edit David Zayas when I login normally. This may be the same problem as, can't think of the article now but may have been Cinco de Mayo, way back around the hot days of May 5, 2010. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Question of Propriety Regarding XLR8TION's Characterization of Me and My Edits
Just out of curiosity, is there anything to be done about XLR8TION continually characterizing me as an "ignorant" vandal, or his continual mention of racism on my part as the reason I made the edit in question to the David Zayas page? He didn't "discuss" anything with me... he called me a racist (against my own ethnicity, no less... Merry Christmas, XLR8TION, I'm as Puerto Rican as you are!) on my own Talk Page, reverted the change I made, and then called in the Marines (pun intended) when I didn't immediately slink back in the shadows but rather tried to explain my own reasoning. I am disturbed by his rather arrogant assumption that there is only one way to "be" Puerto Rican, and that if I don't think like he does, then I am somehow wrong. Or worse, "some redneck". In any case, I am sick and tired of his public denigration of me simply because I disagree with him; he has gone beyond merely being rude and moved into offensiveness. Is there anything to be done about it?JackFloridian (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hispanics in the United States Coast Guard
Hi Tony the Marine, thanks for your question.

I've given it a very quick read through; but have not checked any citations or picture credits at all. I suspect that if I reviewed it at GAN, it would pass after a short "Hold". You seem to a good set of references, but the Chronological list of personal Hispanic accomplishments in the USCG section is mostly uncited, there are some uncited quotations (in World War II) and there are one or two uncited paragraphs - but you probably could use some of your existing citations to fix the last two "problems".

P.S. I think you are using quotes for "ship name", its traditional to use italics Ship name - in a review I would just change those (and if I'm wrong you'd change it back).

Its your choice to nominate it, or not, but I'd probably give it a GA and I suspect that other reviewers would as well - but I can't forecast what other reviewer's comment would be. Pyrotec (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Spanish name" thing
Discussion moved to "Spanish name" thing by request. QuAz GaA  15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: image of Soto
I think I got it right Finally Tony. Although I did like seeing those 3 together in the Same picture. IMO, It adds some Historicity to the Article if all three are there. Cuidate. QuAz GaA  23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, but The Soto image is Fair Use (Copyrighted) which means that the justification I provided was to add to the Infobox of Soto-Velez (due to being deceased). If it is added anywhere else it will eventually be removed. Would you like me to revert back to the Original? QuAz GaA  00:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ QuAz GaA  01:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, thank-you for your response. Cheodiaz (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bavi Edna Rivera
-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Need HELP
Hello Tony,

This is Peter Bond. I don't know if I'm doing this correctly but the Ramon Rivero (Diplo) page has been vandalized several times and I would like to know how can the page be protected so no one but authorized people can edit.

Thanks for all your help. Peter Bond Fundacion Ramon Rivero, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcquicker (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was out for some time. I restored the article under "Ramón Rivero (Diplo)". Let's see what happens. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought I am going to delete the article and re-write it from scratch in accordance to Wikipedia policy, since it has numerous POV issues. I will do a good job in his honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

David Zayas
Why would you go ahead and disrupt discussion by saying Puerto Rico has its own citizenship other than the American one when it doesn't? Its counter-productive to write such things. The whole discussion has extended itself way too long then what it should have been and its because of claims like those. Feed back  ☎ 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you would have checked, the only two relevant sources you posted on my page do not exist. All the other sources either spoke about Foraker which created a Puerto Rican citizenship which was later REPLACED with the U.S citizenship or the fact that Juan Mari Bras renounced his American citizenship. You haven't posted a reliable source that actually states that their is a current PR citizenship of which all residents are members of and is certified by the Puerto Rican government. Due to your strong beliefs that this in fact does exist, I imagine you can find a reliable source in no time. So could I have it? Or better yet, could the article you copy/pasted from have it? Feed back  ☎ 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Juan Ponce de León
The article has been under constant vandalism attack for weeks. Maybe you could consider locking it? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WBB
No problem. BTW, I finally get the Cat listed. Ufff. Happy trails, Mercy11 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Rican citizenship
I actually appreciate the post on my talk page, it was actually very well summarized and done, but I knew all of that except for the court case of Downes vs. Bidwell. Thats an interesting bit of information that I hadn't heard of before.

I understand everything you said, but there is a slight error. You taught me something so its now my turn. Before Puerto Rico transferred to be a US territory and Foraker was introduced, they were freshly christened with Spain's Carta Autonómica (don't know the English word for it... "Autonomy Letter"?). This letter completely redesigned Spain's view of Puerto Rico from scratch and most say it gave them many liberties that exceed the amount Puerto Rico has today. It defined that all Puerto Ricans were "conditional Spanish citizens", but did not define them as Puerto Rican citizens. In fact, there was no mention of any existence of Puerto Rican citizenship. While most thought they had won a battle by being named Spanish citizens, others still yearned for their own national identity. They didn't have time to fight it though, because shortly thereafter, the Hispanic-American war occurred and it eventually lead to Puerto Rico being basically given away by Spain to USA.

The duties, rights and overall all conditions of Puerto Rico were undefined until the USA formally issued a bill, an order, a decree or anything similar. Therefore, all the Puerto Ricans were wondering what the hell was going on. All USA did was appoint a governor and establish an indefinite military rule over Puerto Rico without answering many questions; after all, Puerto Rican citizens weren't the focus of their conquest, instead their focus was military strategy as you had pointed out. Partly because the military courts were tired of handling all disputes in Puerto Rico, in 1900, the Foraker act gave the Puerto Ricans a legal system modeled after the American one. It also gave them a non-voting member of Congress among other things, but the lack of a defined citizenship was evident.

You say that Puerto Ricans weren't in a "state of limbo", but that's actually a good metaphor for their situation. Even if [hypothetically] people liked to call themselves Puerto Rican citizens and made up documents that declared them so, the United States never gave them their own citizenship. And before the USA was in control, Spain didn't give them either. So in no way, at least legally, did they ever get their own "Puerto Rican citizenship". After Jones was instituted 17 years later, mainly because the need for military dummies like you pointed out, they were all granted full United States citizenship. There wasn't even many conditions. If you lived in PR, you were a citizen; period. The need for manpower was very evident.

( Note: Although I did not know about Downes vs. Bidwell, I infer from his prosecution that he was one of the many confused citizens who thought that Puerto Rico was in fact ruled by the U.S. Constitution including having U.S. citizenship. Many thought that at the time, but this trial seems to have cleared it up. )

Like you said, many people were mad and did not want this "imposed citizenship" and although many were actively protesting it, it still maintained. A "Puerto Rican citizenship" was as much of a dream as the independence and everyone knew it. Those who would preach that they were citizens of their "patria"/homeland and not of the "Empire" were just political activists and had no say on the matter.

Juan Mari Bras decided on renouncing his American citizenship and went through a lengthy process to do so, but he was the only one. When he wasn't allowed to vote because of his lack of American citizenship, he appealed to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico who eventually told him he didn't need it. In my opinion, that ruling was illogical. The 1947 Puerto Rican constitution stresses the fact that American citizenship is NECESSARY to vote and they have the right to REQUIRE it.

I have heard of the idea that the government will issue out Puerto Rican certificates of citizenship (with seemingly no definition or rights at all) to anyone who desires it, but I have not found a reliable source for such information. The one that you cited on my page is broken and I am not able to view it.

I must point out that I am not one of those ignorants that you cited at the beginning of your post. I have thoroughly studied Puerto Rican history since during late childhood and early adulthood. From the Aruacos and Tainos to the last election, I try and know all I can about my country, not only Puerto Rico, but United States also, as I am also a native New Yorker. As I stated before, if that last bit of information is true, then all I would need (and all Wikipedia would need) is a reliable source that isn't broken and the issue ends. I obviously can't know everything about the island, but I try and know most of it and all I know is that Bras and some others were declared PR citizens by renouncing their US one (like a friend of mine did) and I haven't read the contrary. Feed back  ☎ 23:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix
The Joaquin Phoenix article has been protected since February of 2009. Any chance it could get unprotected? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hola
Tony, just wanted to touch base and see how you are? Man, your talk page is always busy. --Jmundo (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

hey
thought you might want to take a look at this image: Mari Bras Secretario de Estado, hope you are well. El Johnson (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * done, but I am pretty sure that it might be deleted as is. Not sure how to format the file. El Johnson (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Castro
Tony - I know you're a long-time user and you know how things work around here. What's up with Date of birth was proved by Capt. Castro himself? Frank |  talk  16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

John
I would like to place an investigation on User:WikiDan61, apparently he's been getting in the way of the Puerto Rico Wiki Project and just today, he was able to attack my computer, disorganize my desktop and steal some of the documents I had on file. I believe he's some hacker from the California Area and a threat to some of the users writing articles. We need stricter security measures in this area. Thanks (Jonas Bronx (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC))
 * As the accused in this wild accusation, I was wondering what your reaction to this was? Either you are taking the accusation seriously (in which case I would have expected to be contacted in regard to some sort of investigation) or you are dismissing the accusation (in which case I would have expected to see some censure of the accuser for tossing around false accusations).  Simply ignoring the situation seems inappropriate.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you both bring up the situation with a more experienced admin. such as User:Mindspillage since my real life obligations have contributed to my limited time here for now. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Diplo
Thanks for your help, but the Fundacion Ramon Rivero is not interested in having any articles about Ramon Rivero on Wikipedia because there is no way to prevent idiots from vandalizing the page.

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcquicker (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, the article is very nice and we thank you. However, you already know our concerns with Wikipedia because it really does not make sense to have to worry about some twit adding garbage to the article when you're looking the other way.

Although he is extremely appreciative of your efforts regarding the memory of Ramon Rivero, Jose Orbi, his son and President of the Foundation has developed a strong dislike for Wikipedia because he feels there is no way to protect the information.

All the best and again, many thanks for helping keep alive the memory of Ramon Rivero.

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcquicker (talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship
The official 1916 Report by the American colonial governor of Puerto Rico to the U.S. Secretary of War (the old name for the Department of Defense), alludes to both citizenships, the Puerto Rican citizenship and United States citizenship, in the context of the issuance of passports, further evidencing that the Puerto Rican citizenship did not dissapear when the Americans took over the island in 1898. A similar 1918 official report, this one after the Jones Act of 1917 had become law, states that the "passports...[are used to] prove a person's nationality", thus making clear that not only Puerto Rican citizenship was still in effect, but also Puerto Rican nationality. In these two reports it is clear Puerto Rican citizenship existed before and after the Americans took over the Island. In addition, it's clear (from the common passports theme in both cases) that citizenship and nationality where one and the same concept. That is, someone with Puerto Rican citizenship also had Puerto Rican nationality, and vice versa. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Querella 9-24-2010
I am here to demand the absolute suspension of WikiDan61's wikipedia account for singling out various contributors / editors of the Wikipedia Puerto Rico Project including me since the day I opened my account on September 22, 2010. Example: Here. I am very irritated and fuckinlly annoyed with the fact of having him following me around every time I write an article for the general public and the communities of Puerto Rico. It is the SECOND TIME I open an account in Wikipedia trying to resolve this matter but it just won't stop. This is another example of his rudeness and total fucking around with other contributors and administrators: Here. And please, pardon my language, Can't deal with this FACTOR every time I write and contribute to your Project under good faith with the sole intention of maximizing the value of this great island of ours. Respects, (USLS1 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

If such is the case of me having multiple accounts and I don't need to be here wasting my VALUABLE TIME contributing to the PUERTO RICO PROJECT. On Saturday, September 25, 2010 at exactly 12:00PM in the afternoon, I WILL BE DELETING EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION I HAVE PUT OUT BY MYSELF AND MY SO MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS IF I DON'T SEE ANY RESOLUTION IN THIS MATTER OF CONFLICT BY THE ADMINISTRATORS. (USLS1 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC))
 * My suggestion is that you both state your case with the Arbitration Committee here: Dispute resolution requests since I am not a member of said committee. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

re: And God Created Them
Thanks for the heads up. I've replied on the PR project talk page and asked for more help from the Film Project. Cheers.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Carmen Conteras Bozak.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Carmen Conteras Bozak.jpg, which you've sourced to U.S. Latino and Latina World War II Oral History Project. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the template Marine but the image has an OTRS pending tag which has never been cleared, if the image is pd then apology please remove the tag and the otrs pending. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks MilborneOne|, I re-sent to OTRS the signed permit of usage. I hope that the situation is solved this time. 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)