User talk:SuperFlanker/Archive1

Chavez
Hi Superflanker, I think you're doing a really good job on the Hugo Chavez page. Although I drop in to comment infrequently, it's on my watchlist and I follow the changes as much as I can. Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I try my best SuperFlanker 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reference fixes !
SuperFlanker, thanks so much for fixing the references on some of my last edits. I was lost in editing, suddenly saw the time, was very late, and had to dash out for a committment, so didn't have time to doublecheck my final work. Thanks again :-) Sandy 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem SuperFlanker 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Referencing mechanism
Flanker, I saw you were struggling with the referencing mechanism. Maybe you've already figured it out, but unless you're using a particular reference more than one time, you don't have to give the source a name, although Enano did name them all when he converted them. If you do choose to name a reference, then you can use that reference name if you have to again reference the same source, later in the article. So, for references used more than once, naming them saves time, but for references used once, you don't have to name them. I went through the article yesterday, checking for duplicate references, and fixed them all. I'm sure that explanation probably only confused you worse. Maybe this explanation will help. Saludos, Sandy 01:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks I thought I had a hang of it with the Harvard references and then things changed ;) I sorta have a hang of it now I believe, thanks Flanker 01:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Harvard system that Enano used named every source, regardless of whether it was used once or not, and takes up a ton of space in the article. I'd like to replace them all, as I find time, to make the article easier to edit.  I'm still having a hard time with how long it takes diffs to load, which makes it hard to check for vandalism.  On the other hand, the article seems to have the participation of a lot of good vandal fighters, who catch things quickly.  Sandy 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Been a pleasure working with you on Hugo Chávez
SuperFlanker, I just want to say it has really been a pleasure to work with you, and the civility and respect that existed throughout our attempts to improve the articlewere appreciated. Needless to say, I will not likely ever put so much work into Wikipedia, if weeks of effort, consensus, and civility can be so easily erased by the rude and uncivil, in violation of everything that Wikipedia allegedly represents. Saludos, Sandy 17:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Words not to use
Even if it is found it is against policy (corrected link) Flanker 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me try to give an example you might understand. If Larry King, Dan Rather, George Bush, Tony Blair, Vicente Fox, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly or Joe Bloe (Fulano de Tal) said, "Chávez is an extreme left winger", it would not necessarily be against policy to indicate that person X had said that, just because it's on a list of words that Wiki editors shouldn't use.  The comment may not be worthy of adding to the article, but the policy you are (mis)quoting would not preclude adding it if it were a verifiable statement from a reliable source.  If the editor provided a reference, we could all come to consensus about whether the statement merited inclusion, in the form of X person said Y, or Chávez has been described as ...  The policy you are quoting is about words Wiki editors shouldn't use in describing someone.  It is not about verifiable statements from reliable sources describing someone else.  It is incorrect to dismiss the statment above out of hand, particularly not even knowing if it comes from a valid source (unlike the preponderance of biased sources currently used to reference this article).  You cannot rewrite Wiki policies in such a way that the entire and balanced story about Chávez cannot be told.  Sandy 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey
This image is going to be deleated in 7 day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Su37_2.jpg. If you dont add where you got it and what the copyright status. --SkyWalker 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Economic policy rewrite
Despite all the recent commotion, are you still working on it? If you locate all of your sources, I can help you spruce it up a bit. -- WGee 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I am waiting a bit for the main source to finish migrating to their new website, might start anytime this week. I will let you know.Flanker 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. -- WGee 02:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mission Barrio Adentro
As one of the editors presently working on the Hugo Chavez article, I wondered if you could take a look at the above page. I'm interested in the lower section - as it crosses into one of my editing areas - including Healthcare of Cuba. I wondered if you could add any comments to the Mission Barrio Adentro talk page, I'm interested in what kind of response people have to the material presented as it may need some work.--Zleitzen 03:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Chavez
I'm very sorry to see the direction you've taken on Criticism of Hugo Chávez. Having the backing of other editors doesn't make it right to POV the articles: that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia; the same spirit we collaborated with so well for a long time. Finding increasingly extreme ways to keep neutral content out of Wikipedia is not in the spirit of Wiki. Sandy 00:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I argue, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez may very well be the most POV article in all of those related to the topic, and it has nothing to do with the name. All of this was inevitable Sandy, that article had to go through the same rigorous standard of the mother article, all that has changed was the starting point and that the decision was taken today instead of god knows the mother article was finished.Flanker 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I argue, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez may very well be the most POV article in all of those related to the topic, and it has nothing to do with the name. All of this was inevitable Sandy, that article had to go through the same rigorous standard of the mother article, all that has changed was the starting point and that the decision was taken today instead of god knows the mother article was finished.Flanker 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's OK with you, we'll keep the conversation in one place: I'll check your talk page, so we don't have to go back and forth.  You are making justifications and rationalizations for not allowing NPOVing of the articles.  The Criticism content was more strenously referenced than the original article, because most of Saravask's old content is still not referenced.  Everything new we added to Criticism was well referenced, and you know that as well as I do.  You may be able to argue it was a POV fork, but then you have to allow for the content to be merged back to the main article, where it started.  I do feel that my good faith was taken advantage of, as it was I who willingly moved content to Criticism, which you have now blanked.  This is not good faith editing, and the departure from Wiki policies grows more extreme by the day. Sandy 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not take advantage of your good faith. The rules changed Sandy. Had you not summarized the critiscism section I would have deleted it along with the critiscism article and we would have started from scratch. The summary and the effort to do so at least left us with a stub. The article now has to followed what I said before, it must conform to what they say about Chavez explicitly, meaning no more inuendos, or guilt by association (the Castro quote), the BBVA corruption link might be next since the sources are not up to standard, and it is not sugar coating since the AN investigation faulted Michelena. The standards for criticism and the prose of that critiscism has been raised to increadibly high standards.Flanker 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, those were always the standards, and none of the new content violated it. On the other hand, a lot of the old (Saravask version) content was not referenced.  Just because YOU learned something new, don't assume the rest of us weren't following it all along.  Please restore the content, or we will have to take this dispute to a higher level.  Sandy 03:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack
You have accused me, in this edit summary, of vandalism and retaliation because I removed an unreferenced statement from the article to the talk page for discussion. I will excuse the personal attack this time, in the hope that it was not intended. Please don't accuse me of vandalism again, and please try to resume good faith. Sandy 22:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The prose was referenced, conforms to WP:RS and does not violate WP:BLP please do not remove. You want to debate it fine in the talk page, but your deletion is not conducive to an encyclopedia.Flanker 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That it conforms to WP:RS is highly debatable, which is why it was removed to the talk page. That is not the point.  Please refrain from accusing others of vandalism when making legitimate edits, or your edit summaries could be interpreted as personal attacks.  Thank you, Sandy 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal attack Sandy, so please do not take it personally, you are not approaching this with a cool head. If the vandalism was considered a personal attack fine I apologize and take it back, however the removal cannot be allowed.Flanker 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I could accept your apology, but you have just done it for the third time. This is your third warning now to refrain from attacking my character or motives or good faith editing.  I am not vandalizing, I am not retaliating, and I am certainly calm.  As you know, we've had conversations before about your attempts to paint me as hysterical, and I will not accept any more personal attack characterizations, either on talk page or in edit summaries.  Please refrain from describing me as retaliating or vandalizing in edit summaries, and please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine.  I am certainly calm, and expect these personal attacks to stop.  Sandy 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I only said you were vandalising once and apologized, if me telling you to calm down is a personal attack then there is nothing more I can say. Besides you threatened me with getting me banned I don't see how you think you have a higher moral ground.Flanker 23:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have said my actions are vandalising *and* retaliation. If you continue to characterize me in any way except good faith from here on, it will be interpreted accordingly.  Sandy 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How am I to interpret this? "and I am wondering if it is time to ask that you be blocked from editing these articles."? Is that your goal Sandy? to silence me? You have been incredibly uncivil with me the past few weeks, and there are more examples I can point to. I honestly thought it would be different that we could get along and do this profesionally, but I guess it is the inevitable result when dealing with people that dislike Hugo Chavez.Flanker 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are persistently interpreting a Wiki policy in a way that allows you to disrupt editing: suggesting that may result in a ban from editing is not a personal attack.  And I have never been uncivil to you;  I have been exceedingly patient, to the point of asking you three or four times, to please not characterize my edits as vandalism, retaliation, or irrationally uncalm.  Sandy 00:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh so now we fall back to wikipedia lexicon? is vandalism a personal attack or a wikipedia terminology used a billion times to describe a revert? every major wikipedia editor has used it was it a personal attack? At least I had the honesty to apologize if it was interpreted either way. You have been VERY uncivil with me for around a month, this event is just the latest chapter.Flanker 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this is not my dispute and that I am commenting a couple of days after the fact, but I simply cannot ignore your incredulous accusation against Flanker, Sandy. Flanker's edit summary was certainly not a personal attack.  Flanker was commenting on your actions, not your personality.  WP:ATTACK clearly states that "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks."  You may disagree with Flanker's criticism of your edit, but be careful not to misconstrue Wikipedia policy to express your disagreement.  Be appreciative of the fact that Flanker had the civility to apologize for any misinterpretation. -- WGee 06:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A Reflexion on BLP and the 2004 RR
This BLP debate reminds me of the 2004 Recall Referendum: everybody agreed it had to be done but nobody knew how to to it. Now I understand better all this mess before Aug 2004. JRSP 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would imagine, but the selectivity on who it applies to is too much, All I ask is that the accusation/attacks singles out Chavez/MCM specifically and says what the article says about him (no creative licence) but that is too much it seems.Flanker 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And the innuendos pop up anywhere in the Wiki. But returning to my reflection, many of the events on 2004, especialy those concerning the signature collect, are not a "he kept changing the rules" but a "there were no procedural rules" thing. Something like BLP.
 * BTW, if you have time to correct my spelling mistakes in talks, please do it, of course I will not consider this to be a disruption. And of course you can apply BLP on what I say, it's not a disruption but enforcing the rule ;-) JRSP 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Happy birthday Flanker, this is a present for you. JRSP 07:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Done :) Flanker 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE THE TRUTH?

hey
why did you delete the truth?


 * Because all leaders are mentally insane, leave him for last.Flanker 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Posible CSD
Please check the article on Plan Avila, specially the source, this is unbelievable. It's guilt by association, Plan Ávila is for handling emergencies in Caracas, the article implies it is for killing people. See also List of presidents of Venezuela, look for Plan Ávila in the notes down the list. JRSP 04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chavez
Sorry to see that relations have soured somewhat on the Chavez page, Flanker. I hope they improve again shortly. This editing business is not as easy as it looks - but compared to the regular brutal savagery on the Cuban talk pages your editing disagreements look quite reconcillable! Please keep up the work. --Zleitzen 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the backup re: personal attacks
After reading the banning threat I have come to the conclusion that perhaps I am not wanted editing the article/s.Flanker 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem that way, doesn't it? Nonetheless, I encourage you to remain involved in the article; your contributions are highly valued and appreciated (by me, at least) : ) -- WGee 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (The above was copied from my talk page; I just want to make sure you're aware that your contributions are very valuable!) -- WGee 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What banning threat are you talking about? Flanker, If you leave us I will remove the flag from your user page :-) JRSP 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Venezuelan-Israeli relations
Please hold off on merging this for a little while, at least until after the weekend. I will try to expand this into a more general overview of relations between the two countries today. Respectfully, Republitarian 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well please make it comprehensive, neutral and not all about Hugo Chavez. If you are going to use the anti-jewish angle in particular with the Christ killing quote be aware that was taken out of context and the same jewsish community that blasts him for the Israeli commnets blast the Simon W center for its arrogance and cultural insensitivity Flanker 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh... okay... I have found some links with evidence that the Hugo and Sharon-Olmert administrations have had pretty good relations up until quite recently. For example, when the Israel government sold F16s to the Venezuelans. Respectfully, Republitarian 18:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So... add that to the article... :) Respectfully, Republitarian 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mission Barrio Adentro
Good article, two minor changes in medical terminology and removed an untrue statement about cuban doctors not taking any exams.Let me know if you want me to do anything else. cheersFelix-felix 09:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Chávez and Jews
I noticed on Talk:Venezuelan-Israeli relations you said:

"If this article is about Israel-Venezuelan relations it has to remain as such and not include the jews, and eventually when it gets included in critiscism it should be made painfully obvious that he NEVER says jews (or infers jews) in a negative light, that a random individual infers it is against WP:BLP and should not be included."

There are two problems with this.


 * 1) He does say Jews - see here where he references "wandering Jews"
 * 2) Jews have a link to Israel, as do Jewish NGOs. The Government of Israel considers all Jews important, whether citizens or not, and when Jews are persecuted in foreign lands, the Israeli government usually gets involved. See Operation Moses, Operation Joshua, Operation Solomon, and the Right of Return for what I mean.

Respectfully, Republitarian 05:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From Wandering Jew: "The Wandering Jew is a figure from Christian folklore, a Jewish man who, according to legend, taunted Jesus on the way to the Crucifixion and was then cursed to walk the earth until the Second Coming."

That's not posing Jews in a negative light? Republitarian 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as the Flying Dutchman can be negative for Dutch men JRSP 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

United States-Venezuela relations
I think you may be interested in United States-Venezuela relations. It's in a very poor, and largely neglected state. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do, now that is an important article ;)Flanker 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Venezuelan economy
A recent report suggests things are not so bad after all JRSP 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also updated the net inmigration rate in Demographics of Venezuela. It changed from negative(2000) to zero(2006) accordingly to a reliable source ;=) JRSP 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Informal sector
Informal sector are not just street vendors but non-professional self-employed and workers of small bussinesses (5 or less employees). In fact street vendors are not the more representative part of this sector. JRSP 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of them actually make good money. For instance, a co-operative of 5 car repairpersons JRSP 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Judaism in Venezuela
Although we do disagree on a lot about the Israel-Venezuela relations page, I (still) think creating Judaism in Venezuela is a good idea. Right now I want to focus on Israel's relations with Japan, but perhaps we can work on this at some later time. Respectfully, Republitarian 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Copied from Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations:


 * Oh the irony specially when Sandy openly threatened to chase ME off, for the record WGee their participation was not really that much, I was there it was mostly Sandy and me doing the bulk of the edits, with Enano changeing the references to the new system which was what you did as well.Flanker 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy openly threatened to chase ME off. Produce the diff.  Sandy 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure this is how you view me This is how I view you. Flanker 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks is a strict policy on Wikipedia. You have made a false attack upon me, and you have not produced a diff which backs up your false accusation. As you know, multiple editors across many talk pages have now explained to you that you are wrong to continue wholesale deletions of well-referenced text in the name of WP:BLP. Suggesting that an admin might need to address your actions is not "openly threatening to chase you off." Your apology and correction on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations will be welcomed. Thanks, Sandy 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not going to intimidate me Sandy, you are the aggressor, have always been so and me pointing it out is not a personal attack. I don't view you negatively Sandy even after all of this and I will still treat you with great respect but facts are facts. However this is my opinion: You hate Chavez and want wikipedia to reflect that, however I am not your obstacle, NPOV and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia are the obstacles, not to mention BLP. Flanker 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not my intent to intimidate you. It is my intent to give you a chance to apologize for the unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attack.  You are welcome to show an instance of me being an "aggressor".  You have not yet shown where I "openly threatened to chase you off."  Sandy 05:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you deleted my comments from your talk page I assume you want to carry on the discussion here. If you do not want to chase me off then what is this? "it is time to ask that you be blocked from editing these articles." I don't see any other interpretation other than that, no lets look for comments, then mediation, and finally arbitration but you meted out judge jury and threat of execution. Flanker 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reminding you that you can be blocked for consistently violating policies and guidelines, which had been repeatedly pointed out to you and you still refused to accept and understand, is not "threatening to chase you off." It is reminding you that you are violating Wiki policies and guidelines, and that it may be time to take it to the next step if you don't stop.  I did not "threaten to chase you off", and I would appreciate an apology for the personal attack.  Thanks,   Sandy 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First it is not a personal attack, again it is an observation. Second this could be interpreted as a reminder "Flanker be careful a strict wikipedia policy may have been broken which could block you from this site" or "Could we proceed witht he mediation process?" but you said this it is time to ask that you be blocked from editing these articles. Clearly a threat. Flanker 06:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * PS the opinion of other editors is just that an opinion, it is not binding or anything like that.Flanker 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, stating on an article talk page that I "threatened to chase you off" is patently untrue and a personal attack. I'm not going to discuss this ad nauseum.  The situation is clear.  Further, please do not quote me incorrectly.  I said, " I am wondering if it is time to ask that you be blocked from editing these articles."  In English, that's a difference.  Several editors had already explained to you that you were misinterpreting BLP, you continued, and you continue today, in spite of additional clarifications from even more editors.  Apparently, you are now also ignoring Wiki consensus:  when other editors tell you your editing practice is wrong, it might be wise to listen.  I'm sorry you were apparently so offended by the fact that I pointed out possible consequences of your actions:  it was not my intent to offend, nor is it my intent to intimidate.  It is my intent to remind you that your editing practices are looking intentionally disruptive, and that further action might be needed. I do expect an apology for the personal attack.  I will look for your response tomorrow. Sandy 06:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still no retraction or apology. Reviewing the posts in the light of a new day, I see that the situation is worse than I thought.  Not only did you accuse me of "threatening to chase you off" (unsubstantiated), but you have also called me an "aggressor" (unsubstantiated) and made the outrageous claim that I "compared you to the Nazis".  You have additionally stated above, "You hate Chavez and want wikipedia to reflect that," which is yet another failure to assume good faith, and probably another personal attack as well.  There is a pattern of unsubstantiated statements that amount to personal attack.  I continue to hope that the consensual editing environment that existed on the Chávez articles will return, so that we can trim and balance the articles, as we were successfully doing in May and June.  I'm waiting to hear from you regarding this pattern of personal attack, Sandy 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy you are not going to win this debate with technicalities, none of that is a personal attack and I don't think many would agree with you, plus one could argue you abandoned good faith long ago this being a blatant example It is too bad you feel that way.Flanker 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a debate. This is a friendly discussion, offering you an opportunity to retract your incorrect personal remarks, and return to consensual editing.  Instead, you continue to add on more misinterpretations and personal comments.  Sandy 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They may be personal commnets but they are not attacks, as for debate vs discussion, well to me everything is a debate :) Flanker 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This will be my last response: I'm sorry you consider it a "debate" when I considered it a good faith discussion, giving you an opportunity to back off of the personal attacks.  I will not "debate" this.  Regards, Sandy 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is really a personal attack, why doesn't Sandy notify administrators about it? That she will have you blocked for content disputes but not personal attacks seems odd, to say the least. -- WGee 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When I asked her whether she was male or female, she removed my question immediately, indicating that she wishes to conceal her gender. Although my presumptions suggest that she is female, the issue isn't really relevant. -- WGee 23:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper comma placement
Maybe you forgot this in your training, but this is one thousand (1,000) and this signifies 1 to three decimal places(1.000). I know they can't train you fully in Venezuela the chavistas are not that competent. If your going to change articles in favor of Chavez at least do it right. Y cuando tu estupido presidente piedre en diciembre vamo a ver que tipo de persona en realidad es.

Why don't you read the article you sent me. Both the United States, the United Kingdom and other english countries use the a comma for one thousand therefore considering this is the english version of wikipedia 1,000 is more appropriate then 1.000. If I ever type in spanish wikipedia it will be the other way around. Where did you get your training Cuba(haha). My opinion does nothing to NPOV and anything I write that isn't is sure to be offset by you and Chavez's other cronies.

I wonder how much you will write when he's out of office and the money stops flowing. Who cares what SI says. The main users of English wikipedia are from the UK and the US. Therefore it is logical that decimal separation should be the same as those two countries. I don't care that in Venezuela or the rest of the world it is opposite, it is about the people who read and use wikipedia english. Like I said I would gladly use it in any other form of wikipedia, but it is inappropriate here in english wikipedia. Crony!

Unbelievable
Benjamín Rausseo has been there for two weeks and was never taken down before but, as soon as I put my addition he gets moved! What a suprise! You Flanker and JRSP are so biased towards Chavez that you and your buddies are disgraces to what wikipedia is about. You manipulate something people use for knowledge for propaganda purposes. Pure and simple! I don't care that they are all sourced and whatever all articles related to Chavez are biased and you know it. You make me sick.

Look if you have no intention of being biased, I apologize but, nowhere does that appear to be true. I mean do you really expect me to believe that the day after I edit Benjamin Roussea that it gets moved is supposed to be a coincidence? Come on!

I'll assume good faith when you prove through your editing history which you havn't. I mean do you really expect me to believe it is a coincidence. Why din't you notice it before its been up there forever and it is not hard to miss.

So is that your rule you can fall back on when someone disagrees with any of your edits. I don't have a problem with it as much as the timing. You and two others are editing that article daily and only today did two of you agree to move it. Which I find very suspicious.

Chavez domestic policy
WP:AGF says that you cannot keep assuming good faith when there is constant evidence to the contrary. "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying."

It's not that its been like that forever its because you knew about it forever and change it now. Not only that just because he bowed out now doesn't mean he wasn't a main candidate. We all agreed he was before and just now he isn't?

"include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." Include not limited too.

Your revision on the 14 November shows you thought he was a Main Candidate before and had no qualms abou him being listed there. "Revision of 02:32, 16 November 2006"

You thought he was a main candidate before and now that I added something he isn't now? lol You are just funny.

Ana Julia Jatar
You were revereted my edit regarding Chavez's stifiling of political speech and access. You claim NPOV problem but it is backed up by a source. I am wondering about your personal bias. Ana Julia Jatar is an acceptible source.Preform 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Her publisher is Sumate therefore WP:V


 * "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."


 * It also violates WP:BLP Flanker 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Estimates
I have included both Globovision is a very credible source as our Reuters and AP. Nobody would believe 2 million haha. Globovision is not the Manuel Rosales. That what makes Globovision neutral.

Proper Comma placement
In wikipedia manual of style it says "For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, Hubble’s constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1). For other articles, Imperial, U.S. customary, or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement for further guidance. The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901 — contrary to Continental style."

That wasn't a science article so I guess you were wrong. I guess you will have to live with traditional ones.

License tagging for Image:ABN-26-11-2006-12.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ABN-26-11-2006-12.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Use correct grammar
If your gonna be biased at least use correct grammar.

Image copyright problem with Image:ABN-26-11-2006-12.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ABN-26-11-2006-12.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Preform
If he's being disruptive, we can ask for a check user, but if he's just editing without any trouble, then we should just leave him alone. I don't know the history of his edits. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)