User talk:Viajero/Archive 5

Hello Viajero.

Perle asked on irc that two emails were deleted from the archives. [1] and [2]. You wrote one of these two mails. In these mails is revealed the (possibly) real name of Alex. Besides some information is given about his location. Alex asks that in the name of privacy rights, these two mails be removed from the archive. He sent me a mail from the name mentionned there. Would you by any chance agree to the removal of the mail you wrote ? Thanks :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hola Viajero: Muchas gracias por el artículo que comenzaste sobre Charles Horman. Muy informativo. Voy a ver si puedo encontrar la película. Get-back-world-respect 23:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Anthere, I would oppose deleting that email from the mailing list database.

okay

Plank lists his name and address in full public view on his User page [1], hence his quest for privacy cannot be taken seriously.

He listed it as a result of an agreement reached between Tim Starling and him after Perl succeeded to get sysop status on maori, by deceiving Tim over his identity. He should normally link that information. Practically, I restored the link yesterday :-)

Moreover, I was simply referring to information included in the header of every email he posts.

Apparently, he is troubled by the fact, not to give his real identity, but by the fact his real name could be googled (since the mailing list is known by google) which would result in people knowing his location (revealed in these two mails) and ultimately to the information he has Asperger Syndrome (which he would prefer not to be publicly found through google).

Given his fervent wish to become an administrator, his efforts in the past to mislead people with regard his true identity should remain part of the public record.

For information, Alex is now sysop on maori (through deception of Tim), sysop on wikibooks, and sysop on meta (thanks to a weird policy to access sysop status, policy which changed ... yesterday)

Plank has to learn to take responsibility for his actions. -- Viajero 14:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After discussion with Tim, Tim agreed for these two mails to be kept, but for the information to be hidden by anonymizing the two names. Do you agree with this, or not at all ? Just tell me, and we'll do as is. Perle will maintain the contact page on his user page (I'll ensure that he does), but he would be happy that his personal information can not be found so easily by google. I wait for your feedback for any action anyway :-) That is a mail you wrote, so your property.

Thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:05, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Hi, thanks for fixing Dresden, Yes, it was an accident, we both repaired it in the same minute. Sorry nevertheless. I do not really know how that could happen. A subpage got everything somehow, really don´t understand why. ;-) I will pay more attention in future.

You might want to check my recent remark at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lir: someone edited your comment anonymously. -- Jmabel 17:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the VfD page. I do not know what to do but I may help in talking to them. By the way, the person looks like a guy :) Pfortuny 16:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Pinochet

Both of us watching at the same time, I see. While I was adding {{msg:protected}} you protected it, so I accidentally unprotected and had to re-protect. --Michael Snow 22:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nick Berg:

Re: Nick Berg: If you don't know why it was protected, why unprotect it without proper understanding? I would suggest contacting the person who protected it before throwing caution to the wind and opening up a mess you know nothing about. Page history is not the appropriate place to look for discussion. Before unprotecting a page please read the discussion and discover the issues.

This article has some controversial topics and much discussion in the talk page. It has even spilled into a draft version to work out the issues before the article is unprotected. Feel free to enter the discussion. - Tεx τ urε 19:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I should have done that, yes. Ive been OOTL for a while, and was in a hurry to protect it after Antheres less controversial revert than OV's cvsl one. Thanks for reminding me. -Stevertigo 16:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hinton

Thanks for the invitation. You got the article off to a very nice start. 172 18:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! Their online publication is an excellent resource. Also, good work on Paul Sweezy and other Monthly Review-related articles. Although I have a subscription, I didn't find out about Paul Sweezy's death until I saw that you'd updated the article this February. It was sad seeing that up on the main page.

BTW, on a topic related to Hinton, considering the remarkable parallels to the Chinese Revolution, have you been following their articles on the Nepalese civil war? If you haven't seen it yet, here's a link to the September 2003 letter from Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, the chief Maoist negotiator in Nepal, published by the Monthly Review. The Hinton article made me realize that I haven't taken a look at Wikipedia's Nepal-related articles. Would you also be interested in working on this topic? 172 20:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pinochet

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll? 172 15:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. They've almost driven me away from the site from good. A simple "no" vote is good enough, though. If the results are overwhelming enough, at least Veriverily will be forced to tone down his personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. 172 16:28, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I copy and paste your comments to the list of "no" votes so that they are counted? 172 16:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't like the idea about polling over the inclusion of factual content either, but I feared that otherwise I'd be left alone on the page bickering with VV and only VV. 172 17:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Following the overwhelming result of Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll, would you want to facilitate the process of unprotecting the page and putting up the winning version of the intro, Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version)?

Re: "hopefully VeryVerily will chill out." He still hasn't backed down one inch! 172 12:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are way out of line to unprotect a page to install your preferred version. You participated in Talk and even voted in the poll (which did not favor one intro over the other) and so should clearly be recusing yourself. I put a note in Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions, but I'm going to remove it since that was done in haste and I should have talked to you first. But I will repost it if you do not desist. V V 12:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how we can handle the Veriverily problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Augusto_Pinochet,_posted_by_User:172 172 13:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No prob about the archive; while of course one should be careful about archiving ongoing discussion, I understand now that was not your intent. However, I remain disturbed by your removal of the protection and installation of your favored text. I think it would appropriate to revert to the previous stable version to annul this action and its damage to the credibility of the community rules. Contrary to 172's insinuations, I really prefer to avoid these extended fights over policy matters. V V 07:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The unprotection

Regretfully, I have to agree with VeryVerily that your unprotection of Augusto Pinochet was premature and inappropriate. I realize that you protected it originally, but by voting in the poll you became an involved party, which I feel makes it improper for you to make the decision to unprotect. I realize that Wikipedia:Protection policy is not explicit in that regard, but I think it is just as improper for an involved party to decide when to unprotect as to protect. Note that although I have posted on the talk page to try and move the discussion along, I have carefully expressed no opinions on the disputed issues.

I don't know how closely you had been following the discussion, but it was pretty clear to me that we were not at a consensus, the poll results notwithstanding, and that unprotection would simply restart the revert wars, which is exactly what happened. If you thought that the poll was enough reason to change the existing article from one version to another, while still being protected, that possibility should have been raised on the talk page first. --Michael Snow 16:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Music school vs conservatory

I've no preference myself. I suppose music school avoids the need for parentheses, but I don't think there's anything in it, really. Either would be fine, I think. --Camembert

I suspect that music school will be the most helpful to the user. Cutler 15:26, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Nevilley has some thoughts on this (albeit piffling weakminded ones ;) on my talk page (they're also in favour of music school). --Camembert

Letizia Ortiz

Hi there Viajero! I just wanted to know if you're planning on uploading a new picture for the Letizia Ortiz article since you have changed the image name? If not, I'll just revert it back to the old picture... --Vikingstad 13:48, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-French sentiment in the United States

I understand that you did not enjoy being reverted, that is generally a given. I avoid reversion as much as possible, but what you did was against policy. I illustrate this on the article talk page. Please read the article talk page and discuss the matter there. P.S. David.Monniaux wrote most of what you deleted, check the edit history. He is French, BTW. Sam [Spade] 19:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

DESQView vs. DESQview

No big deal. I hope the merge retained the most useful bits, cleaned it up and retained a redirect. I'll eventually look at all that when I have time.JimD 17:51, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

Felice Romani

Nice job! I could only contribute some details. Mercadante and Meyerbeer also set his libretti I think. His lyric poems are undervalued. Wetman 20:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In need of community support

I'm in need of community support.

Right now, I am on the verge of being driven away from Wikipedia through the relentless efforts of a single problem user on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 vs VeryVerily.

The same user who refuses to accept the results of the Augusto Pinochet poll (see also [3]) goes through my user history every time he logs on and then starts reverting things that I've written arbitrary. He manages to divert attention away from the articles onto ad hominem attacks, thus poisoning the well against me. [4]

He has been doing nothing else for the past couple of months, other than making some minor changes to pages that he finds through the random page feature. Meanwhile, I've been working on articles such as Empire of Brazil, Dollar Diplomacy, and Franco-U.S. relations. I'm tired of letting a problem user define my contributions to the encyclopedia, as opposed to my work.

I may have said some regrettable things in the past, but my editing practices are scholarly and methodical. When I make an edit, my choice is based on a consideration of the quality of the encyclopedia. Unlike the user who avowedly admits to trying to escalate a personal feud (see, e.g., [5]), I do not decide which pages to edit and what changes to make on the basis of personality feuds, emotional POV whims, or a desire to get attention.

Although this user shows little evidence that he understands the content of the articles, I have shown considerable restraint, given my professional expertise. [6]. Only through community support (i.e. lobbying the arbitration committee)will this user be stopped. Otherwise, Wikipedia will die unless we stop vandals and clueless POV-pushers from running rampant and driving away valued contributors.

Please feel free to direct questions and comments to my talk page or e-mail at sokolov47@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

172 01:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean coup of 1973

If I didn't know better, I'd think that this was parody? This has to be singularly the worse thing I’ve ever read on Wik. Ugh. 172 02:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Writers

I have no problem with a category of Latin American Writers, but since someone seems to have the intent of listing people by nationality, I'm not sure it would meet their goal. I added the category of Argentinian writers when I noticed that someone else had created a category for Polish writers, probably comparable in number. (In either case, there are probably 50-100 that would clearly deserve articles; I do not know how many of those articles exist.) -- Jmabel 07:01, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Writers

Yeah, categories seem to be almost inherently chaotic. I think there was general agreement that writers should be classified by genre (and perhaps also by nationality), and that they should be kept out of Category:Writers. There's some discussion of this at Category_talk:Writers, I believe. john k 15:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Peru

Are you up-to-date on things Peruvian? Could you take a quick glance at Regions of Peru, where a recent anon has disambigged cities and depts with the same name and (I suspect) de-linked some cities that already had articles. That article also contradicts the corresponding section on Peru -- regions? departments? how many? A right mess. –Hajor 14:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fast! Tnx. –Hajor

I agree - great title! Glad to see that you're still here by the way - people keep being driven off... Secretlondon 18:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Argentina

Are you up to speed on the politics of Argentina? Our articles need lots - the article on Kirchner is really just about his election, we have very little on the peronist party or on peronism in general. Secretlondon 18:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

This place really is turning into a dumping ground for crap! But I doubt that we'll be able to solve this problem through VFD; some people will just vote to keep anything.

Before this turns into another anti-French sentiment in the United States fiasco (I mean, another playground for trolls), someone should replace it with a real article right away. Or perhaps the two of us, along with users like Danny and Mirv, could agree on an outline for a new article and then divvy up the work? If you think that this is a good idea, I already have some ideas.

On that note, if the organization of the article focuses on institutions and polices-- as opposed to headings like "bias" that'll invite everyone with a dogmatic but ill-informed opinion to spew rants vaguely related to the topic-- Wikipedia can have a serious article. The best way to prevent trolling is to remake the outline of articles so that authors have to stay concrete and specific; and thus, the ones who lack the knowledge won't have any ground to stand on.

In case writers are interested in divvying up work on a new article, perhaps the following comments could provide ideas for a preliminary draft outline. All with respect to the Mideast conflict, we can have sections on the markets and editorial policies of-- and the money and people behind-- (a) the Western newswires agencies (AP, BBC, Reuters, UPI, etc.) (b) broadcast TV networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.) (c) the tabloid media (the London tabloids, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, etc.) (d) the business media (Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Economist, etc.), (e) major local newswires (New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, etc.) (f) the Israeli media (Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, etc.), (g) advocacy groups/think tanks/commentary (AEI, ADL, Commentary, Weekly Standard, etc.) (h) the alternative media in the West (e.g., Democracy Now, FAIR, Pacifica, Monthly Review, National Public Radio, etc.), (i) and finally the Middle East media (the various state news agencies plus emerging newswires services like Aljazeera).

Also, this AEI polemic by Muravchik ("Unfair and Unbalanced") (drivel) can be referenced when we're giving an overview of the neocon/Likud perspective on the issue of "anti-Israel bias" in the "mainstream media." Briefly citing something like this, and perhaps an opposing argument from the Arab and/or alternative media, can allow us to quickly circumvent the "bias" issue that I'm sure is a flamewar in the making. Columbia Journalism Review should be a good resource for serious references.

BTW, do you want to take care of this vandalism. I shouldn’t revert it, as I'm sure the usual troll-sympathizers will use that as an excuse to call for my banishment again (and again, and again, and again) on the mailing list. Sigh. This place is just getting more frustrating by the day. 172 03:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Picture and others

Viajero, mis disculpas por lo de la foto: no habia notado la discusion llevada a cabo al respecto. Acuso también recibo sobre los comentarios de las categorías. Baloo rch 21:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Excellent writeup of Christa Ludwig. Just right! Best wishes, Antandrus 16:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What the hell am I going to do? I log on today and find that all the changes I've made from the day before are reverted. When I make changes today they get reverted again almost instantaneously by VeryVerily. I just let the stalker win this time and give up. Now, I check the computer again and see that users are now voting to ban me. How the hell did things turn to this? Should I just give up now? Is there anything I can do? VeryVerily seems to be saying that if I don't leave voluntarily, he's going to make it impossible for me to stay. And most users seems happy to go along with this. 172 23:03, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I assume you know that was a loaded question (Why is it still so difficult for you to face), so I won't dwell on that. Your references are interesting, but tertiary sources are hardly evidence, much less proof, or, rather, they're merely evidence of what Albright thinks, etc. The actual, existing evidence has already been laid out in the articles and talk pages, and does not justify claims of American involvement in the coup. See Talk:Augusto Pinochet for this endless conversation. If Washington's "hand" was indeed "hardly disguised", the evidence should exist; it does not. I should note that you seem to be identifying subsequent support of Pinochet with assistance to his rise to power, which are separate matters. (The former being, he's there, he's all we've got, we'd better work with him.) In particular, Albright's statement of personal opinion appears to focus on the other issue. No doubt, you find me stubborn and perhaps ideological (or, as Secretlondon said, "utterly brainwashed"), but I sincerely do not believe the US instigated the 1973 coup, and I have seen virtually every document and piece of evidence that's been thrown out to argue otherwise, and IMHO they do not add up to vindicating this canard. I hope you understand this and my subsequent take on NPOV policy. V V 00:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hitler

Why did you protect this page? Who asked you to, and where? I see no discussion in the respective talk page regarding this. Sam [Spade] 18:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chilean coup

No prob, that's why I didn't even bother responding. I've noticed your work over time, I think we are both among the ones where it's a pretty safe bet we are trying to build an excyclopedia rather than grind our axes. -- Jmabel 18:59, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Loss of credibility

Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and its emphasis on suicide bombers deliberately targeting civilians riding public transportation (buses), the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by the Israeli public. In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv found that: 39% of all Israelis support the Accords and that 32% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years. [7]. By constrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis support the Accords and 18% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years; decreases of 13% and 16% respectively. Furthermore, the May 2004 survey found that 80% of all Israelis hold that the Israel Defense Forces have succeeded in dealing with the Al-Aqsa Intifada militarily. [8]

assistance

Replied on my talk. —No-One Jones 18:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VfD conversions

In order to keep the continuity with your question, I replied on my Talk page. Hope this answers your question. Rossami

Bellas Artes

Ahora hasta el metro artículo tiene. Ahora nomás falta el estacionamiento ese grandote. Con un saludo, –Hajor

Ad hom

I'll have to ask you to refrain from personal attacks on me or anyone else whose opinion differs from yours. Your effort to drive me away because of my opinion (non-violent and non-extreme) is noted, as well as your inability to cooperate. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Opera Project

I gave it a very minor tweak and added my name: a good project. Wetman 09:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But... as for Verdi's Macbeth though I've seen it twice it ranks with I Masdanieri and Stifellio doesn't it? I love Verdi, the composer and the man. But Macbeth doesn't rank with oeras one needs to know, no? Wetman 17:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

US versus U.S.

Sorry for the delay in my reply. Regarding US versus U.S., there was a vote somewhere that was inconclusive, but the consensus (or compromise) seemed to be at least to use the American-style (U.S.) for American topics. There's one discussion here. It's also mentioned in the fourth bullet here. "U.S." seems to be the one partial exception to the acronym guideline. --Minesweeper 03:14, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Your ban

Please stop reverting perfectly legitimate edits such as those from 212.181.86.76, and in particular, do not block an IP address again for making legitimate edits. Thanks! — Timwi 22:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please ask your anonymous friend to create a login and to write the article on world revolution before he starts adding the link to a large number of articles -- otherwise it looks suspiciously like oddball vandalism. Thanks! -- Viajero 22:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(I've moved your reply here from my user talk page in order to keep the discussion in one place.) Firstly, they are not my friend. Secondly, please do not regard IP addresses as a "lower class" as compared to logged-in accounts. Thirdly, it was hardly a "large number of articles" they added the link to. Fourthly, it is pretty unfair of you to expect of them to write an entire article just to contribute meaningful links. — Just be a little bit more tolerant next time, OK? :) Thanks. — Timwi 22:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, another thing: Please do not ban people again without first warning them on their User talk page. Thanks :) — Timwi 23:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can I second Timwi's request? Not creating an account is not an offence, much less an offence worthy of being blocked. Wikify articles is not vandalism. I appreciate that once you've seen a lot of "Josh is gay" vandals, perspectives get distorted, but just because something seems weird to you, doesn't make it vandalism. Please don't bite the newcomers. Martin 00:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I look forward with intense interest to reading world revolution. -- Viajero 21:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

welcome message

Hi Viajero,

I just got a message from you. It looked automated but I just wanted to check in to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm new here so if I've done anything out of line, please let me know.

Thanks

Thanks for the links to the Business Week and Counterpunch articles. The lack of beating around the bush really surprised me; after all, these arguments were quite controversial just a few years ago. Perhaps it's now safe to say that the "Washington Consensus" no longer beyond reproach in the mainstream U.S. media these days, since the Argentine crash, Lula's election, the breakup of the WTO summit in Cancun, and the Iraq War.

BTW, if you haven't seen this yet, check out this interview [9]. 172 06:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Viajero,

First I'm sorry if I didn't add this in the right place. I'm not a computer whiz! Secondly, let me commend everyone involved on a generally excellent reference aid. I just found Wikipedia and have found it on the whole balanced in presentation. Unfortunately, the entry on anti-semitism http://www.fact-index.com/a/an/anti_semitism_1.html is misleading and more harm than help. I have checked the procedure for criticizing articles, and found the talk page and your discussion, and am turning to you for assistance.

I will make three points, though the whole entry is problematic.

1. Anti-semitism is a late 19th c term, which the article admits, but then applies to the entire 2000 years of anti-Jewish sentiment. It is no coincidence that it arose at the same time as semitism and Zionism, the former referring to Jewish ideas or influence in politics or society, the latter to the Jewish nationalist movement aimed at establishing a Jewish state. Jewish influence and assimilation in Europe increased dramatically with the consolidation of capitalism, and Zionism (anti-assimilationism) was a major cause of this new phenomenon ANTI-semitism. Anti-semitism, which ironically was coined in 1880, BEFORE semitism, originally referred to a belief in Jewish racially inferiority (clearly in reaction to belief in Jewish racial superiority), but has now been transformed into "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary), i.e., equating it with anti-Zionism. Zionism is a blatantly racist doctrine as opposed to a merely nationalist one, and it is no surprise that as Europe became more secular and opened itself to the Jews, this racist strain in Jewish thought PROVOKED a negative reaction.

2. There is no reference to the REAL sources of anti-Jewish sentiment

- - through the ages***: this inherent racism of Judaism (the Chosen People

doctrine), and the Talmud, which among other shocking things describes Jesus as the anti-Christ and Satan and glories in the belief that Jews indeed are responsible for killing Christ. A list of the many anti-Christian (anti-human) doctrines of the Talmud would require a volume in itself.

3. Christianity had very good reason to REACT AGAINST Jewish customs and activity right from the start. And many reputable historians would argue that outbursts of persecution of Jews in history have everything to do with machinations by Jews themselves, causing a reactionary against them, rather than an ingrained tendency towards racism by non-Jews. This is in fact the history of anti-Jewish prejudice for at least 2000 years. Again, a volume is needed here! Medieval Spain and England and the 19th c Ottoman empire are egregious examples of Jews gaining a financial stranglehold and suffering the consequences.

This unbalanced presentation of a very delicate issue feeds a dangerous misunderstanding of the role of Jews in their host societies at a time when the world is descending rapidly into world war prompted in the view of many authorities (including the likes of Finkelstein and Chomsky) by the actions of Israel.

It is telling that in other articles dealing with Jewish matters (Schneerson, anti-Zionism) the entries are qualified with "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Curiously the entry on anti-semitism is BOTH protected and free of this qualification, though I see there is at least some discussion going on the talk page. I'm not interested in engaging in online polemics, and I understand this issue is perhaps the most explosive in Wikipedia, but I see no reason why 'the other side' should not be fairly presented, even if the pro-Jewish POV gets the final word. Can you suggest how to proceed? Thanks.

Yours truly,

Eric Walberg eric@albatros.uz