![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Callelinea. Thank you very much for your excellent contributions creating new articles on Cuban subjects. This is most appreciated. Feel free to add {{ WP Cuba}} to the talk pages of new articles, which means they can be incorporated into WikiProject Cuba, and you may also wish to add new pages to Portal:Cuba/New article announcements. Thanks. -- Zleitzen (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Callelinea, regarding the project template, you need only copy the text that appears on this page (ie. without the tl inserted in the code) and it should display the template. See my amendment on Talk:Del Junco. Thanks. -- Zleitzen (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this article, I agree in that there's a great deal of POV statements. What you might want to do is to find what sources you can for the provable statements (don't worry about format... just type something simple up like <ref>[http://here.com Proof]</ref> for now... references can be tricky to do). For the rest, tag some of the more glaring POV stuff with the {{fact}} tag behind it. That way anyone else who reads it will know there's something fishy about the statement made. Tabercil 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain why you recreated this article? It was deleted as part of the AfD discussion. -
Amarkov
moo!
17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see your rewrite. Here's the problem. There is only one claim in the article that might possibly make him notable. That is, that he was the point of a Cuban claim to the UN. However, you have not cited it. You simply cannot add material and hope for the best. You have to properly show and note where that information came from like you would in an academic paper. The other question is whether or not that claim really is notable. If he is just mentioned in passing, then probably not. If he's the main point of an international issue then probably so.
Also, you might look for other things that make him notable. Is there no coverage of his work with CAUSA. You say that he/they have been credited with pressuring the Clinton administration. Who says? Where did they say it?
You may or may not have an article worth saving. But at the moment, I would argue for deletion. You have to document your claims. Be sure and read
WP:N which will help you understand what makes a subject notable,
WP:RS which helps you under stand what sources are considered acceptable and
WP:V which explains why we must be able to verify everything in the Wikipedia. Please read those guidelines and policies. Let me know when you've done some more updating and I'll check back. I have no grudge against the Pollack article but it has to meet the standards.
JodyB
talk
10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I just got your comments. I am unaware if you read Spanish but my second source.. http://www.cubaminrex.cu/CDH/60cdh/nota_prensa%20.htm.. is the protest letter that the Cuban government filed to the United Nations where it mentions Enrique A. Pollack and his actions. As far as the CAUSA problem. I guess it could be removed.. I know that at the time in 1994 it was mentioned a few times in The Miami Herald and the Diario De Las Americas (the local papers in South Florida) but I have yet to find out which days they appeared. Thanks for your imput. Callelinea 11:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you add those comments immediately to the article. I do not speak Spanish but I would assume their inclusion would make a difference. JodyB talk 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message and the excellent work on researching sources regarding Enrique Pollack. That is exactly the type of sources that Wikipedia needs -- multiple independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject and the facts asserted in the article. In addition I found one other, from the St. Petersburg Times (see below). And thanks for acquainting me with NewsBank, which appears to be an excellent resource. Needless to say, I have
changed my vote and comments in the Deletion Review. Best, --
MCB
23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the additional article:
St. Petersburg Times - September 23, 1996
Silence greets effort to discuss Cuba
" "Miami calling; please answer the phone," Enrique Pollack said into the radio microphone Sunday after dialing the telephone number for Radio Progreso in Havana. The phone rang and rang. "I just want to talk; let's talk," said Pollack, program director of Miami's Havana Rock radio show, which airs Sunday evenings and is aimed at young people who live in communist Cuba [....]"
Something to keep in mind when using a non-english source on the english wikipedia is found here. I just don't want you to get crossed up with anybody over this. You've put too much work into it. JodyB talk 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Please accept this Barnstar of Diligence for exceptional perseverance in researching Enrique A. Pollack and for multiple contributions to Wikipedia in the field of Cuban culture and history. Cheers, -- MCB 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
Hello. You posted a question on my user page about what an "abogado-notario" was so you could better understand what your grandfather and great-grandfather did for a living. I am not 100% sure, but I can give you some information that may help get you going. Be aware that this refers to abogado-notario in the general sense and may not be applicable to Cuba. I suspect that it will apply to pre-revolutionary Cuba because its legal system was derived largely from the Spanish system and what I tell you will be applicable in Spain and many of its former colonies. So here we go:
An "abogado" is simply an attorney, someone licensed to practice law. A "notario" is a notary - but this is much different than from what a notary in the US is. In civil law countries (which Cuba was before the revolution, and which it remains in many respects today), a notary is somebody who tends to do what in the US is known as transactional work (drafting contracts, wills organizing real estate transactions, etc., and also doing public records type work and authenticating documents). It is a lucrative job to have - it generally takes additional study beyond what is merely required to practice law. I don't know if they limited how many notaries there could be at one time in Cuba (in France, for example, there are only so many notary positions allowed.)
I saw on your user page that you often travel to Cuba. If you want to learn more about what your grandfather and great-grandfather did for a living, I would suggest stopping by the University of Havana the next time you are in Cuba. I see you have been there a number of times, so you no doubt know where it is. The law school, as of May 2006 when I was there, was under renovation and the faculty of law was located temporarily across the road from the university. You might want to drop by and see if they have information. Consider stopping in to the National Union of Cuban Jurists (UNCJ) (it's the bar association for Cuban lawyers). They may have records or otherwise be able to give you some information on what your grandfather did. Their office is in Vedado, but I forget exactly where. Somebody no doubt could point you in the right direction. Alternatively, if your ancestors practiced law outside of Havana province, you might want to travel to the capital of the province in which they lived and find the UNCJ headquarters and see what kind of info you can get from them - I saw one in Santa Clara and one in Cienfuegos, so I know they exist.
I hope this information was helpful and I wish you the best of luck in your research. takethemud 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much, that's great! :) Chris 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Callelinea/Archives/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! -- Thw1309 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
A "{{
prod}}" template has been added to the article
Isabel S. Martinez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached.
Myanw
09:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the proposed deletion process again. If you need to revert vandalism, please make sure you do not delete the template, as it's a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you feel the vandalism is out-of-control, please ask for semi-protection on the page. Thanks!-- Dali-Llama 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This article still doesn't come even close to satisfying the requirements of WP:BIO. Please review these guidelines and conform the article accordingly. Rklawton 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for deletion. This review and discussion process typically takes five days. Your recent edits failed to address any of the requirements listed under WP:BIO. If you wish to defend this article in its deletion discussion page ( here) you'll want to familiarize yourself with our biographical articles guidelines. Rklawton 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You've got 100% delete votes for this article - not counting yours. Doesn't that give you pause to think? Rklawton 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Callelinea, please don't take the AfD personally. I've seen your contributions and I think they are very valuable--you take a particular topic (Cuba, mostly) and you run with it (I mostly do the same for Brazil, so I feel the pain of sometimes having to establish notability according to the current policy). I wouldn't like to see an editor become frustrated with an issue that is not personal, but political. Policy can be changed. Like some said, many echo the inclusive philosophy and feel it should be included, but voted for deletion because of the current policy. The good thing about Wikipedia is that policy, just like articles, can be changed. Best of luck and keep the good edits coming!-- Dali-Llama 23:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
copy/pasting KEEP statements on a couple of dozen AFDs because you believe Wiki should be more inclusive is not productive. Try taking it up at the village pump. It's likely nobody will consider any statement from you on any AFD after this. CitiCat 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
A word of advice. By adding blanket copy-and-paste keeps to dozens of AfD like you have, you've insured that the credibility of your future comments is shod. Perhaps you should consider going back and editing/tempering those? I assume you've been stressed out by an AfD on an article that mattered to you personally (which is, by the way, a bad idea)... but this knee-jerk reaction will do little but harm you in the long run. -- Coren (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not spam editor's talk pages complaining about the current round of AfD's. This is inappropriate behavior. If you wish, you can post a complaint at WP:ANI. This will attract the attention of administrators and isn't (generally) considered disruptive. Rklawton 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Once the Isabel S. Martinez AfD ended the way it did, I noticed that a lot of her relatives also had articles, so I went through a few of those articles and nominated those that don't meet Wikipedia's WP:BIO guideline. Please notice that I did not nominate all of your articles. But you need to understand what constitutes notability. Run-of-the-mill doctors and lawyers, although probably good people, don't get articles on Wikipedia. And I am not part of any sort of cabal out to get you. Even if I do think your comments on AfDs that say that anything anybody wants to write an article should be kept are a bit over the top. Corvus cornix 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Callelinea, at your request, I reviewed each of the articles. Generally, the AfD's seem reasonable to me. But let me explain why so that you can prevent this in the future. Articles must have some reason to exist here. We would say that an article has to be notable. Such notability is established through the use of reliable sources. Please see and careful read both
WP:V and
WP:N. Many people who come from a "prominent' family have never really accomplished anything notable enough to belong here. Find a secondary source like a newspaper or magazine article, maybe a website, that discusses your subject and be prepared to use it to show why the person is notable. Use
incline citations and the article should be fine. But remember, it is primarily your responsibility to properly source your articles and assert the importance or notability of the subject. See also
WP:BLP for information about articles about living people. If I can help more, please let me know.
JodyB
talk
16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Even your comment on my talk page that you intend to do more probably isn't enough. For one thing we don't leave unsourced material, especially about living people, in the encyclopaedia if it could be considered controversial. Second, the sources need to be of the type that they could be reviewed and checked by other editors. A private source of the Cuban government which could not otherwise be verified would not, IMO, be sufficient. We do appreciate your efforts but some standards are pretty firm. As for one editor listing the articles, well that's not necessarily relevant here since the consensus seems to be against keeping them. JodyB talk 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not have to be published in the US nor does it have to be in English. If you will carefully read WP:V you will be well equipped to gain the proper sources. Let me suggest you look at WP:NOR as well. JodyB talk 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[1] -
WP:NPA.
Corvus cornix
16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not doing your cause any favors by all of your little hissies. Corvus cornix 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed your AfD for
Carlos Prio-Touzet. I thought this might be useful.
Angus Lepper(
T,
C,
D)
17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.
I – Put the deletion tag on the article.
|
II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.
The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well:
|
III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.
|
I've given you a one hour block. Please
do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Improperly and incompletely listing a dozen random articles for deletion is NOT productive.
Circeus
18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what I did wrong? I nomininated articles I felt needed to be nomininating and stated my reasons for nominating them.
Callelinea
18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
How immature. Corvus cornix 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am neutral on that issue. While all articles look interesting and generally ok, they really may not fulfill the criteria of notability. - Darwinek 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, chill. I know it's heart-wrenching to see what you've created put up for deletion, but stay calm. You've done good work, and don't let this rough spot sour you on Wikipedia. Right now I'm at work and I don't have the opportunity to properly take a look at what's going on and to give you any advice on what you should do. What I would strongly advise you to do is not to do things like put further articles up for AfD... even if the other articles deserve to be put up, it's really bad optics coming so soon after your own articles going up for AfD.
Expect a further, more detailed message with advice in about a couple of hours after I get home and have a chance to take a long look here... Tabercil 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright. First things first, I can sympathize with how you feel... seeing a number of articles which you've sweated over up for deletion. Hell, I've been in the same situation myself, and a bunch of articles to which I've made contributions (and even created) now exist as nothing more than redlinks. You have a lot of people chiming in voting to delete... and it's rough. Remember when
Sinead O'Connor went on stage at that Bob Dylan tribute concert and she got the living shit booed out of her? Do you remember what
Kris Kristofferson said to her at that time? His exact words: "Don't let the bastards get you down". Well, Callelinea, don't let them get you down. You've done good work... you've picked up a Barnstar, that's something to be proud of, and I have faith in your being able to positively contribute to Wikipedia otherwise I wouldn't be typing this.
I always view an AfD as saying this about an biographical article: "someone thinks this article does not, as it stands now, present a good enough argument as to why this person is notable." So what I do is I try to take a fresh look at the article and ask myself: "Why do I think this person notable? Why do they think this person is not notable?" Maybe the article doesn't say within why the person is notable - for instance, someone could have deleted it then put it up for AFD... it's happened. Maybe the article does say why, but it's not very well explained. Or maybe the person simply is not notable.
Wikipedia has deliberately set a bar, saying that anything under that level does not belong here. That bar is Wikipedia:Notability (people) (more commonly referred to as WP:BIO). So let's take a fresh look at the articles that are up for deletion and compare them to the bar.
First up, Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista. When I look at this article, I see some redlinks for starts - that's not a good sign right there to me as that makes me think that the person at the other end of that redlink is not notable. The bulk of the information present is strictly genealogical in that the best argument for keeping it is Miguel's relationship to Mauricio J. Tamargo but there's nothing to show what Miguel actually did. As a different notability guide (that being Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)) points out as invalid notability criteria: "The person has a relationship with a well-known person. Relationships do not transfer notability.". Unfortunately, unless there's some major additions to it, this article is toast... sorry. I would save a copy of the article on your hard drive so if you do find clear evidence showing what Miguel did that's notable (presumably during your Cuban visit in August) you can easily recreate it. But remember, if/when you do recreate the article, make sure that you present clear evidence of notability, and provide sources as well.
Pretty much the same can be said for Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo, Alonso del Portillo-Marcano and Alonso del Portillo-del Junco. These articles presents clear genealogical information, but we already know that being related to a notable person does confer notability. What did they do toi make them notable? Were they active in politics? Did they have prominent places in society? That's what's needed.
Next up is the last biography: Alonso R. del Portillo. As Nightscream said in the AFD, he is most noteworthy in relation to Pedro Zamora. But that's tangential and it doesn't fully satisfy the notability criteria so this article should be expanded with aditional information about what Alonso did.
Now there is another issue with Alonso R. del Portillo and it's a big honking doozy: this is an article about you Callelinea, isn't it? I remember this edit from back when you first started editing Wikipedia and got into a tussle with User:Enriquepollack and I got dragged into it because Enrique got the two of us mixed up (and I have a very good memory). As well, the biographical details found in the article on Alonso and your own user profile line up. If that's the case then you're going to have to recuse yourself from further edits to this article, and perhaps also from further arguments to the AfD. The reasoning for this can be found in Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." You'd be well advised to read through the entire Autobiography guideline just to be safe.
Lastly is Vinagre Portillo. The article says it was the "second largest vinegar producing company..." (which makes it a big fish) "in Cuba" (in a small pond). What you should do is to expand the article to show greater evidence of notability. For instance, is the pond bigger than it first seems - for example, were they were the second largest in all of the Caribbean? Or you might so some action of theirs made them notable. For instance, you note in the article that the factory was torn down for housing... is there a why behind that? Was it Castro's way of revenge for some action on the part of the company or the company's owners?? If so, what happened in the first place to cause the "revenge"? That might be a clue as to how you can establish notability... but that'll require research to come up with reliable sources and I doubt you'll be able to come up with something before the current AFD process is done.
Now, let's move on to what you did after the AFD. I hate to be blunt, but I feel I have to be: what you did was piss poor stupid and you deservedly got blocked for it. Yes, I know - ouch. What you did in putting the other articles up for AFD could be construed as disruptive. And as it was pointed out to you, Wikipedia has an entire policy page on that topic: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (commonly referred to as WP:POINT). Even if you had already planned to put those articles up for AFD, doing so at this point in time is just bad optics. As well, this edit does not make you look good. Now admittedly you reverted yourself but still... My advice? Suck it up and apologize. Say you're human, you went way over the top in your reaction and in the future you won't make that stupid mistake again. And put it in your own words... it doesn't need to be right away. You might want to take a day or two, walk away from Wikipedia to chill out then come back and apologize. You're on rather thin ice right now as a result of your reaction to the AFDs... the most important thing you must do is think first before you you act further.
Now I know some of what I have said is probably not what you want to hear, but that's how I see the situation. Remember, I'm here to help you out... if you want you can drop me an email. Tabercil 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello:
I got the posting on my wall from you regarding your articles nominated for deletion. I read them and chimed in on three that I thought were definitely worth keeping. Unfortunately, the votes seem to be against your articles being maintained.
My general feeling is that Wikipedia should have as much information on it as possible and that where reasonable persons may differ as to whether something is noteworthy, it is best to err on the side of inclusion. But, as you know, many people on Wikipedia do not share the same view. That is why articles which are borderline noteworthy get deleted. On a related note, it seems that these articles all relate to one family. If this is your family, be aware that Wikipedia does have policies relating to what are called "vanity articles." That, and note solely 'noteworthiness', may be the reason for deletion of these articles.
My advice to you would be this: If the articles are deleted (which they may be), it isn't exactly a miscarriage of justice, but that doesn't mean the information is irrelevant to Wikipedia. You should try as hard as you can to get this information included on Wikipedia. You may want to create an article about "pre-Castro Cuban Industrialists" or "Cuban Politicians of the 20th Century" or "pre-Castro Cuban Industry" in order to get this information (or at least part of it) included on Wikipedia. At the very least, create your own genealogical webpage and find some way to link to it (perhaps through an article on "Cuban Genealogy," which you, as a Cuban genealogist, could always create).
I hope this was helpful. Best of luck to you w/ these articles & enjoy your upcoming trip to Cuba. Say "hello" to the Malecon for me.
takethemud 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.. will do on saying hi to the malecon.. :) Callelinea 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:COI: COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. I am therefore asking you not to edit articles about you or your family members or comment further on the AfD discussion pages. If continue to do so, I will immediately block your account from editing. I hope I make myself clear. Your behavior has been inappropriate and disruptive, and you have significantly abused our good faith. Rklawton 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! What the heck is going on, why are so many Cuban articles being deleted recently? If they can have an article on every little character in all the videogames, then there should be articles on Cuban notables. Someday Cuba will be open again, and we will wish we had all this information that was removed. Chris 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Antonio de la Rúa.
Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --
Yamla
14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.42.56.206 Blocking admin: Yamla Block reason: Spamming links to external sites Block originally applied to: Callelinea Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair: I feel it is totally unfair because I explained my position. I am not Spaming. Nor have I ever Spamed. What I did was post references to the article Moraima Secada and Antonio de la Rúa and she claims they are spams, when they are in fact refrences in Spanish. Additionally, if you look at the AfD of Antonio de la Rúa you will see that other see nothing wrong with including articles in Spanish and with listing Spanish Wikipedia as one of the references. Callelinea 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed your autoblock, which appears to have stayed active after you were unblocked for some reason. Ƙ ɽɨ ɱρ ᶓȶ 01:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Callelinea. I've been away from the site and missed your plea for help on those Cuban articles. I'm disappointed that they were deleted as I found them very interesting, but I hope you continue your good work on other articles.-- Zleitzen (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The José Martí Barnstar | |
For your work on Cuban biography articles. -- Qyd 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
I want to let you know that I am deletion your bishop articles for nomination, because, in my opinion, and because of the second opinion that I got before doing the nomination ( Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Bishops), bishops are not inherently notable, unlike Archbishops and Cardinals. I did not know that you were the original editor of the articles when I began the deletion process, so please know that this is not anything personal. Corvus cornix 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond about the name of this man. I have done so on my user talk page. Noel S McFerran 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Saints Star Award
The Saints Star Award may be awarded for efforts in Saints WikiProject, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Anglicanism, and WikiProject Christianity. Created for saints of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia by Essjay. See Saints Star Award for more information. For all your hard work on the Miami Archdiocese bishops. Thanks, your work helps make the project more informative. NancyHeise 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatly my source for the above was for (track and field) athletics only. I don't know of any sources for swimming as my interest is (track and field) athletics. Also note that the article was meant as results for athletics (what US calls track and field not as in sport in general) hence I have removed your link to the swimmer. good luck with finding a source for the swimming. Waacstats 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a page for this very important person in the history of Miami. NancyHeise 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles Emilio Ochoa Ochoa and Emilio Ochoa seem to be about the same person. Please consider merging the articles. -- Jreferee t/ c 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How are we to consider other Wikpedias reliable sources, when they are not subject to any peer review or official scrutiny and can be changed by anyone? They're as reliable as MySpace or blogs. Besides which, we have already established that you didn't actually use that Wikipedia as a source - you copied and pasted a biography from a site you didn't source at all, All Music Guide. If I have to, I'll get a third opinion about this, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the right about all this. And your behavior is awful fishy. Chubbles ( talk) 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I hate to ask this of you, but could you please refrain from further edits to the Henry Pollack article? This is strictly to bring some peace to the article, and to avoid an appearance of you having a conflict of interest. This would also include reverting edits made by others which can be construed as vandalism... there are at least two administrators watching the article (including myself) so vandalism will be caught and dealt with. If you wish to further contribute to the article, you can leave comments at Talk:Henry Pollack. Thank you. Tabercil 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please provide legit links to references in Dexter Lehtinen, all of your supposed references are bogus without valid links. Corvus cornix talk 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Admins are not referees. Corvus cornix talk 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not my responsibility to do a Google news search, it's the responsbility of the editor to provide valid references. Corvus cornix talk 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to provide valid links, those "references" are bogus. Corvus cornix talk 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit differences are not vandalism. Templating me with vandalism templates is bullshit, and you know it. Corvus cornix talk 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Dexter_Lehtinen Corvus cornix talk 06:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I see another editor agrees with me. Corvus cornix talk 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
and the date you retrieved it if it is online Corvus cornix talk 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So then why is it so difficult for you to add the actual links? Corvus cornix talk 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no way to know which of the cited news articles pertain to which claims in the article. Or indeed if any of them are relevant. Use inline citations, preferably to online sources. Dethme0w ( talk) 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, as Dethme0w said, inline citations are preferred, as are links to the online sources if available. I suggest using citation templates as well so your citations get a nice consistent format. As an example, I've converted one of the citations at Dexter Lehtinen to the {{cite web}} template. Hope this helps! Jfire ( talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
See? How difficult was that? I'm happy now. Corvus cornix talk 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And now you've re-added the bogus references. I've placed a {{refimprove}} tag. Provide links. Corvus cornix talk 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Callelinea/Archives ... your cleanups to articles listed in Category:Cuban contemporary artists are commendable, but what these articles really need is reliable sources to verify meeting the WP:BIO criteria ... please see Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists#Continuing deletions, and perhaps you would like to add your name to the list of editors on this fledgling project ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 14:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
Raúl Corrales Forno has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. "References and notability established" is not as informative as "Declined
Prod". Happy Editing! —
72.75.72.63 (
talk)
20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, none of these editors
have contributed to this "Cuban artists" checklist (although there have been limited dialogs on some talk pages) ... some of them either initiated or declined PRODs, and I have asked them politely to record their actions on the checklist (like renaming/merging articles) … I mean, declining a seconded PROD without even an edit summary? What's up with that?
Well, I'm sick of playing Sisyphus and cleaning up after them, so I have deleted these articles from my watchlist, and Some Other Editor can maintain/update it … or not.
In any event, it is time for me to MOVE ON. :-)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Callelinea/Archives ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?
Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 14:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Callelinea/Archives ...
As I was putting some lipstick on Grupo Antillano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I noticed that you were using "ISBN:" ... FYI, if you omit the colon (":") then the MediaWiki software will automagically link the ISBN to the search engine on WP:Book sources, e.g., " ISBN 978-0917571121" does not require any formatting, but "ISBN: 978-0917571121" is not recognized. :-)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 ( talk) 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
templates, but not this session. —
72.75.110.142 (
talk)
20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have deleted the article. I believe the G4 reasoning does not apply here as I explained in the Talk page of the article.. Additional references were provided and in-line citations. Callelinea ( talk) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your message to me on my Talk Page: Bias and lack of a neutral point of view is not indicated by a lack of inline citations, nor does pointing to such citations mitigate it as a problem. It is a problem that is inherent to your being the subject of the article, which cannot be resolved by a mere assertion by you to the contrary. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, maturity, objectivity and decency would understand this principle, and honor Wikipedia's mission by respecting its policies, not merely by upholding their letter, but their spirit as well, instead of engaging in wikilawyering by splitting hairs over whether a particular behavior is "prohibited" or "frowned upon" (and yes, my observation of your wikilawyering part of what WP is and not merely what I think it should be. See the wikilawyering passage on the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.) Creating an article about yourself is inherently wrong, and if you cannot bring yourself to admit this, then you are profoundly misinformed, and guided by a self-promotional agenda that is at odds with Wikipedia's mission, as indicated by various statements on your User Page. Nightscream ( talk) 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice update of this article. Corvus cornix talk 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on Belen. Maybe we can get this article cleaned up. I agree with you on athletics and just got reverted for my pains. But re-reverted. Hopefully the newbie won't be able how to go back more than one change! :) Student7 ( talk) 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to talk to you about the notability of a few people on the Alumni list.
I'm not sure if these men meet the Wikipedia standards of notability as put forth by WP:NOTE. Now, I understand that you believe that people shouldn't have to stand up the a high degree of notability on Wikipedia, but that is not the common consensus.
I'm hoping we, as two educated men, can iron this out. -- Rabbethan 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job with the Notable Alumni page. -- Rabbethan 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your excellent work on the Belen Alumni page. -- Rabbethan 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hi! Again thanks for all your contribs to Cuba-related articles. A simple request; would you mind to assess articles that you tag with {{ WP Cuba}}. Oh and one more thing... Thanks :)— Navy Blue formerly iDosh 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That states the Belen faculty confiscated and burnt the school newspaper.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Belen_Jesuit_Preparatory_School&diff=197244933&oldid=197166658 64.238.174.69 ( talk)
I have removed the two staffers you readded to her page. As the two individuals do not have Wikipedia biographies, it is likely that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. You also have a CoI since one of them is you. "Bill Burlew" -wikipedia only nets 179 Google hits, and he appears to share his name with at least one other person, and a search of your name -wikipedia nets only 29 hits. Horologium (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the court case you mentioned in the afd, this one, it doesn't make him inherently notable just for being in a lawsuit. It tells us nothing about the writer other than that their song was the center of a lawsuit. Furthermore, there is nothing else about Perdew that makes him notable. That information is most certainly pertinent to Prop Me Up Beside the Jukebox (If I Die), but it's not enough to carry Perdew's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion on a page that I noticed that you commented on. I am interested by your user page and agree with your ideas and policies. I was wondering if you might be interested in looking through the comments as seeing what you think. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzoJames ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Gracias por haber votado a mi favor en la discusión de borrado de mi biografía en la Wikipedia en inglés (soy Jorge Queirolo). Te dejo mi dirección de correo electrónico: jqueirolo@yahoo.com
Gracias nuevamente. Saludos.-- 201.239.134.185 ( talk) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Callelinea. Thank you very much for your excellent contributions creating new articles on Cuban subjects. This is most appreciated. Feel free to add {{ WP Cuba}} to the talk pages of new articles, which means they can be incorporated into WikiProject Cuba, and you may also wish to add new pages to Portal:Cuba/New article announcements. Thanks. -- Zleitzen (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Callelinea, regarding the project template, you need only copy the text that appears on this page (ie. without the tl inserted in the code) and it should display the template. See my amendment on Talk:Del Junco. Thanks. -- Zleitzen (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this article, I agree in that there's a great deal of POV statements. What you might want to do is to find what sources you can for the provable statements (don't worry about format... just type something simple up like <ref>[http://here.com Proof]</ref> for now... references can be tricky to do). For the rest, tag some of the more glaring POV stuff with the {{fact}} tag behind it. That way anyone else who reads it will know there's something fishy about the statement made. Tabercil 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain why you recreated this article? It was deleted as part of the AfD discussion. -
Amarkov
moo!
17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see your rewrite. Here's the problem. There is only one claim in the article that might possibly make him notable. That is, that he was the point of a Cuban claim to the UN. However, you have not cited it. You simply cannot add material and hope for the best. You have to properly show and note where that information came from like you would in an academic paper. The other question is whether or not that claim really is notable. If he is just mentioned in passing, then probably not. If he's the main point of an international issue then probably so.
Also, you might look for other things that make him notable. Is there no coverage of his work with CAUSA. You say that he/they have been credited with pressuring the Clinton administration. Who says? Where did they say it?
You may or may not have an article worth saving. But at the moment, I would argue for deletion. You have to document your claims. Be sure and read
WP:N which will help you understand what makes a subject notable,
WP:RS which helps you under stand what sources are considered acceptable and
WP:V which explains why we must be able to verify everything in the Wikipedia. Please read those guidelines and policies. Let me know when you've done some more updating and I'll check back. I have no grudge against the Pollack article but it has to meet the standards.
JodyB
talk
10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I just got your comments. I am unaware if you read Spanish but my second source.. http://www.cubaminrex.cu/CDH/60cdh/nota_prensa%20.htm.. is the protest letter that the Cuban government filed to the United Nations where it mentions Enrique A. Pollack and his actions. As far as the CAUSA problem. I guess it could be removed.. I know that at the time in 1994 it was mentioned a few times in The Miami Herald and the Diario De Las Americas (the local papers in South Florida) but I have yet to find out which days they appeared. Thanks for your imput. Callelinea 11:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you add those comments immediately to the article. I do not speak Spanish but I would assume their inclusion would make a difference. JodyB talk 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message and the excellent work on researching sources regarding Enrique Pollack. That is exactly the type of sources that Wikipedia needs -- multiple independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject and the facts asserted in the article. In addition I found one other, from the St. Petersburg Times (see below). And thanks for acquainting me with NewsBank, which appears to be an excellent resource. Needless to say, I have
changed my vote and comments in the Deletion Review. Best, --
MCB
23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the additional article:
St. Petersburg Times - September 23, 1996
Silence greets effort to discuss Cuba
" "Miami calling; please answer the phone," Enrique Pollack said into the radio microphone Sunday after dialing the telephone number for Radio Progreso in Havana. The phone rang and rang. "I just want to talk; let's talk," said Pollack, program director of Miami's Havana Rock radio show, which airs Sunday evenings and is aimed at young people who live in communist Cuba [....]"
Something to keep in mind when using a non-english source on the english wikipedia is found here. I just don't want you to get crossed up with anybody over this. You've put too much work into it. JodyB talk 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Please accept this Barnstar of Diligence for exceptional perseverance in researching Enrique A. Pollack and for multiple contributions to Wikipedia in the field of Cuban culture and history. Cheers, -- MCB 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
Hello. You posted a question on my user page about what an "abogado-notario" was so you could better understand what your grandfather and great-grandfather did for a living. I am not 100% sure, but I can give you some information that may help get you going. Be aware that this refers to abogado-notario in the general sense and may not be applicable to Cuba. I suspect that it will apply to pre-revolutionary Cuba because its legal system was derived largely from the Spanish system and what I tell you will be applicable in Spain and many of its former colonies. So here we go:
An "abogado" is simply an attorney, someone licensed to practice law. A "notario" is a notary - but this is much different than from what a notary in the US is. In civil law countries (which Cuba was before the revolution, and which it remains in many respects today), a notary is somebody who tends to do what in the US is known as transactional work (drafting contracts, wills organizing real estate transactions, etc., and also doing public records type work and authenticating documents). It is a lucrative job to have - it generally takes additional study beyond what is merely required to practice law. I don't know if they limited how many notaries there could be at one time in Cuba (in France, for example, there are only so many notary positions allowed.)
I saw on your user page that you often travel to Cuba. If you want to learn more about what your grandfather and great-grandfather did for a living, I would suggest stopping by the University of Havana the next time you are in Cuba. I see you have been there a number of times, so you no doubt know where it is. The law school, as of May 2006 when I was there, was under renovation and the faculty of law was located temporarily across the road from the university. You might want to drop by and see if they have information. Consider stopping in to the National Union of Cuban Jurists (UNCJ) (it's the bar association for Cuban lawyers). They may have records or otherwise be able to give you some information on what your grandfather did. Their office is in Vedado, but I forget exactly where. Somebody no doubt could point you in the right direction. Alternatively, if your ancestors practiced law outside of Havana province, you might want to travel to the capital of the province in which they lived and find the UNCJ headquarters and see what kind of info you can get from them - I saw one in Santa Clara and one in Cienfuegos, so I know they exist.
I hope this information was helpful and I wish you the best of luck in your research. takethemud 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much, that's great! :) Chris 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Callelinea/Archives/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! -- Thw1309 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
A "{{
prod}}" template has been added to the article
Isabel S. Martinez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached.
Myanw
09:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the proposed deletion process again. If you need to revert vandalism, please make sure you do not delete the template, as it's a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you feel the vandalism is out-of-control, please ask for semi-protection on the page. Thanks!-- Dali-Llama 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This article still doesn't come even close to satisfying the requirements of WP:BIO. Please review these guidelines and conform the article accordingly. Rklawton 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for deletion. This review and discussion process typically takes five days. Your recent edits failed to address any of the requirements listed under WP:BIO. If you wish to defend this article in its deletion discussion page ( here) you'll want to familiarize yourself with our biographical articles guidelines. Rklawton 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You've got 100% delete votes for this article - not counting yours. Doesn't that give you pause to think? Rklawton 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Callelinea, please don't take the AfD personally. I've seen your contributions and I think they are very valuable--you take a particular topic (Cuba, mostly) and you run with it (I mostly do the same for Brazil, so I feel the pain of sometimes having to establish notability according to the current policy). I wouldn't like to see an editor become frustrated with an issue that is not personal, but political. Policy can be changed. Like some said, many echo the inclusive philosophy and feel it should be included, but voted for deletion because of the current policy. The good thing about Wikipedia is that policy, just like articles, can be changed. Best of luck and keep the good edits coming!-- Dali-Llama 23:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
copy/pasting KEEP statements on a couple of dozen AFDs because you believe Wiki should be more inclusive is not productive. Try taking it up at the village pump. It's likely nobody will consider any statement from you on any AFD after this. CitiCat 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
A word of advice. By adding blanket copy-and-paste keeps to dozens of AfD like you have, you've insured that the credibility of your future comments is shod. Perhaps you should consider going back and editing/tempering those? I assume you've been stressed out by an AfD on an article that mattered to you personally (which is, by the way, a bad idea)... but this knee-jerk reaction will do little but harm you in the long run. -- Coren (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not spam editor's talk pages complaining about the current round of AfD's. This is inappropriate behavior. If you wish, you can post a complaint at WP:ANI. This will attract the attention of administrators and isn't (generally) considered disruptive. Rklawton 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Once the Isabel S. Martinez AfD ended the way it did, I noticed that a lot of her relatives also had articles, so I went through a few of those articles and nominated those that don't meet Wikipedia's WP:BIO guideline. Please notice that I did not nominate all of your articles. But you need to understand what constitutes notability. Run-of-the-mill doctors and lawyers, although probably good people, don't get articles on Wikipedia. And I am not part of any sort of cabal out to get you. Even if I do think your comments on AfDs that say that anything anybody wants to write an article should be kept are a bit over the top. Corvus cornix 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Callelinea, at your request, I reviewed each of the articles. Generally, the AfD's seem reasonable to me. But let me explain why so that you can prevent this in the future. Articles must have some reason to exist here. We would say that an article has to be notable. Such notability is established through the use of reliable sources. Please see and careful read both
WP:V and
WP:N. Many people who come from a "prominent' family have never really accomplished anything notable enough to belong here. Find a secondary source like a newspaper or magazine article, maybe a website, that discusses your subject and be prepared to use it to show why the person is notable. Use
incline citations and the article should be fine. But remember, it is primarily your responsibility to properly source your articles and assert the importance or notability of the subject. See also
WP:BLP for information about articles about living people. If I can help more, please let me know.
JodyB
talk
16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Even your comment on my talk page that you intend to do more probably isn't enough. For one thing we don't leave unsourced material, especially about living people, in the encyclopaedia if it could be considered controversial. Second, the sources need to be of the type that they could be reviewed and checked by other editors. A private source of the Cuban government which could not otherwise be verified would not, IMO, be sufficient. We do appreciate your efforts but some standards are pretty firm. As for one editor listing the articles, well that's not necessarily relevant here since the consensus seems to be against keeping them. JodyB talk 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not have to be published in the US nor does it have to be in English. If you will carefully read WP:V you will be well equipped to gain the proper sources. Let me suggest you look at WP:NOR as well. JodyB talk 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[1] -
WP:NPA.
Corvus cornix
16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not doing your cause any favors by all of your little hissies. Corvus cornix 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed your AfD for
Carlos Prio-Touzet. I thought this might be useful.
Angus Lepper(
T,
C,
D)
17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.
I – Put the deletion tag on the article.
|
II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.
The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well:
|
III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.
|
I've given you a one hour block. Please
do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Improperly and incompletely listing a dozen random articles for deletion is NOT productive.
Circeus
18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what I did wrong? I nomininated articles I felt needed to be nomininating and stated my reasons for nominating them.
Callelinea
18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
How immature. Corvus cornix 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am neutral on that issue. While all articles look interesting and generally ok, they really may not fulfill the criteria of notability. - Darwinek 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, chill. I know it's heart-wrenching to see what you've created put up for deletion, but stay calm. You've done good work, and don't let this rough spot sour you on Wikipedia. Right now I'm at work and I don't have the opportunity to properly take a look at what's going on and to give you any advice on what you should do. What I would strongly advise you to do is not to do things like put further articles up for AfD... even if the other articles deserve to be put up, it's really bad optics coming so soon after your own articles going up for AfD.
Expect a further, more detailed message with advice in about a couple of hours after I get home and have a chance to take a long look here... Tabercil 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright. First things first, I can sympathize with how you feel... seeing a number of articles which you've sweated over up for deletion. Hell, I've been in the same situation myself, and a bunch of articles to which I've made contributions (and even created) now exist as nothing more than redlinks. You have a lot of people chiming in voting to delete... and it's rough. Remember when
Sinead O'Connor went on stage at that Bob Dylan tribute concert and she got the living shit booed out of her? Do you remember what
Kris Kristofferson said to her at that time? His exact words: "Don't let the bastards get you down". Well, Callelinea, don't let them get you down. You've done good work... you've picked up a Barnstar, that's something to be proud of, and I have faith in your being able to positively contribute to Wikipedia otherwise I wouldn't be typing this.
I always view an AfD as saying this about an biographical article: "someone thinks this article does not, as it stands now, present a good enough argument as to why this person is notable." So what I do is I try to take a fresh look at the article and ask myself: "Why do I think this person notable? Why do they think this person is not notable?" Maybe the article doesn't say within why the person is notable - for instance, someone could have deleted it then put it up for AFD... it's happened. Maybe the article does say why, but it's not very well explained. Or maybe the person simply is not notable.
Wikipedia has deliberately set a bar, saying that anything under that level does not belong here. That bar is Wikipedia:Notability (people) (more commonly referred to as WP:BIO). So let's take a fresh look at the articles that are up for deletion and compare them to the bar.
First up, Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista. When I look at this article, I see some redlinks for starts - that's not a good sign right there to me as that makes me think that the person at the other end of that redlink is not notable. The bulk of the information present is strictly genealogical in that the best argument for keeping it is Miguel's relationship to Mauricio J. Tamargo but there's nothing to show what Miguel actually did. As a different notability guide (that being Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)) points out as invalid notability criteria: "The person has a relationship with a well-known person. Relationships do not transfer notability.". Unfortunately, unless there's some major additions to it, this article is toast... sorry. I would save a copy of the article on your hard drive so if you do find clear evidence showing what Miguel did that's notable (presumably during your Cuban visit in August) you can easily recreate it. But remember, if/when you do recreate the article, make sure that you present clear evidence of notability, and provide sources as well.
Pretty much the same can be said for Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo, Alonso del Portillo-Marcano and Alonso del Portillo-del Junco. These articles presents clear genealogical information, but we already know that being related to a notable person does confer notability. What did they do toi make them notable? Were they active in politics? Did they have prominent places in society? That's what's needed.
Next up is the last biography: Alonso R. del Portillo. As Nightscream said in the AFD, he is most noteworthy in relation to Pedro Zamora. But that's tangential and it doesn't fully satisfy the notability criteria so this article should be expanded with aditional information about what Alonso did.
Now there is another issue with Alonso R. del Portillo and it's a big honking doozy: this is an article about you Callelinea, isn't it? I remember this edit from back when you first started editing Wikipedia and got into a tussle with User:Enriquepollack and I got dragged into it because Enrique got the two of us mixed up (and I have a very good memory). As well, the biographical details found in the article on Alonso and your own user profile line up. If that's the case then you're going to have to recuse yourself from further edits to this article, and perhaps also from further arguments to the AfD. The reasoning for this can be found in Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." You'd be well advised to read through the entire Autobiography guideline just to be safe.
Lastly is Vinagre Portillo. The article says it was the "second largest vinegar producing company..." (which makes it a big fish) "in Cuba" (in a small pond). What you should do is to expand the article to show greater evidence of notability. For instance, is the pond bigger than it first seems - for example, were they were the second largest in all of the Caribbean? Or you might so some action of theirs made them notable. For instance, you note in the article that the factory was torn down for housing... is there a why behind that? Was it Castro's way of revenge for some action on the part of the company or the company's owners?? If so, what happened in the first place to cause the "revenge"? That might be a clue as to how you can establish notability... but that'll require research to come up with reliable sources and I doubt you'll be able to come up with something before the current AFD process is done.
Now, let's move on to what you did after the AFD. I hate to be blunt, but I feel I have to be: what you did was piss poor stupid and you deservedly got blocked for it. Yes, I know - ouch. What you did in putting the other articles up for AFD could be construed as disruptive. And as it was pointed out to you, Wikipedia has an entire policy page on that topic: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (commonly referred to as WP:POINT). Even if you had already planned to put those articles up for AFD, doing so at this point in time is just bad optics. As well, this edit does not make you look good. Now admittedly you reverted yourself but still... My advice? Suck it up and apologize. Say you're human, you went way over the top in your reaction and in the future you won't make that stupid mistake again. And put it in your own words... it doesn't need to be right away. You might want to take a day or two, walk away from Wikipedia to chill out then come back and apologize. You're on rather thin ice right now as a result of your reaction to the AFDs... the most important thing you must do is think first before you you act further.
Now I know some of what I have said is probably not what you want to hear, but that's how I see the situation. Remember, I'm here to help you out... if you want you can drop me an email. Tabercil 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello:
I got the posting on my wall from you regarding your articles nominated for deletion. I read them and chimed in on three that I thought were definitely worth keeping. Unfortunately, the votes seem to be against your articles being maintained.
My general feeling is that Wikipedia should have as much information on it as possible and that where reasonable persons may differ as to whether something is noteworthy, it is best to err on the side of inclusion. But, as you know, many people on Wikipedia do not share the same view. That is why articles which are borderline noteworthy get deleted. On a related note, it seems that these articles all relate to one family. If this is your family, be aware that Wikipedia does have policies relating to what are called "vanity articles." That, and note solely 'noteworthiness', may be the reason for deletion of these articles.
My advice to you would be this: If the articles are deleted (which they may be), it isn't exactly a miscarriage of justice, but that doesn't mean the information is irrelevant to Wikipedia. You should try as hard as you can to get this information included on Wikipedia. You may want to create an article about "pre-Castro Cuban Industrialists" or "Cuban Politicians of the 20th Century" or "pre-Castro Cuban Industry" in order to get this information (or at least part of it) included on Wikipedia. At the very least, create your own genealogical webpage and find some way to link to it (perhaps through an article on "Cuban Genealogy," which you, as a Cuban genealogist, could always create).
I hope this was helpful. Best of luck to you w/ these articles & enjoy your upcoming trip to Cuba. Say "hello" to the Malecon for me.
takethemud 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.. will do on saying hi to the malecon.. :) Callelinea 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:COI: COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. I am therefore asking you not to edit articles about you or your family members or comment further on the AfD discussion pages. If continue to do so, I will immediately block your account from editing. I hope I make myself clear. Your behavior has been inappropriate and disruptive, and you have significantly abused our good faith. Rklawton 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! What the heck is going on, why are so many Cuban articles being deleted recently? If they can have an article on every little character in all the videogames, then there should be articles on Cuban notables. Someday Cuba will be open again, and we will wish we had all this information that was removed. Chris 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Antonio de la Rúa.
Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --
Yamla
14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.42.56.206 Blocking admin: Yamla Block reason: Spamming links to external sites Block originally applied to: Callelinea Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair: I feel it is totally unfair because I explained my position. I am not Spaming. Nor have I ever Spamed. What I did was post references to the article Moraima Secada and Antonio de la Rúa and she claims they are spams, when they are in fact refrences in Spanish. Additionally, if you look at the AfD of Antonio de la Rúa you will see that other see nothing wrong with including articles in Spanish and with listing Spanish Wikipedia as one of the references. Callelinea 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed your autoblock, which appears to have stayed active after you were unblocked for some reason. Ƙ ɽɨ ɱρ ᶓȶ 01:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Callelinea. I've been away from the site and missed your plea for help on those Cuban articles. I'm disappointed that they were deleted as I found them very interesting, but I hope you continue your good work on other articles.-- Zleitzen (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The José Martí Barnstar | |
For your work on Cuban biography articles. -- Qyd 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
I want to let you know that I am deletion your bishop articles for nomination, because, in my opinion, and because of the second opinion that I got before doing the nomination ( Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Bishops), bishops are not inherently notable, unlike Archbishops and Cardinals. I did not know that you were the original editor of the articles when I began the deletion process, so please know that this is not anything personal. Corvus cornix 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond about the name of this man. I have done so on my user talk page. Noel S McFerran 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Saints Star Award
The Saints Star Award may be awarded for efforts in Saints WikiProject, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Anglicanism, and WikiProject Christianity. Created for saints of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia by Essjay. See Saints Star Award for more information. For all your hard work on the Miami Archdiocese bishops. Thanks, your work helps make the project more informative. NancyHeise 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatly my source for the above was for (track and field) athletics only. I don't know of any sources for swimming as my interest is (track and field) athletics. Also note that the article was meant as results for athletics (what US calls track and field not as in sport in general) hence I have removed your link to the swimmer. good luck with finding a source for the swimming. Waacstats 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a page for this very important person in the history of Miami. NancyHeise 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles Emilio Ochoa Ochoa and Emilio Ochoa seem to be about the same person. Please consider merging the articles. -- Jreferee t/ c 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How are we to consider other Wikpedias reliable sources, when they are not subject to any peer review or official scrutiny and can be changed by anyone? They're as reliable as MySpace or blogs. Besides which, we have already established that you didn't actually use that Wikipedia as a source - you copied and pasted a biography from a site you didn't source at all, All Music Guide. If I have to, I'll get a third opinion about this, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the right about all this. And your behavior is awful fishy. Chubbles ( talk) 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I hate to ask this of you, but could you please refrain from further edits to the Henry Pollack article? This is strictly to bring some peace to the article, and to avoid an appearance of you having a conflict of interest. This would also include reverting edits made by others which can be construed as vandalism... there are at least two administrators watching the article (including myself) so vandalism will be caught and dealt with. If you wish to further contribute to the article, you can leave comments at Talk:Henry Pollack. Thank you. Tabercil 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please provide legit links to references in Dexter Lehtinen, all of your supposed references are bogus without valid links. Corvus cornix talk 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Admins are not referees. Corvus cornix talk 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not my responsibility to do a Google news search, it's the responsbility of the editor to provide valid references. Corvus cornix talk 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to provide valid links, those "references" are bogus. Corvus cornix talk 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit differences are not vandalism. Templating me with vandalism templates is bullshit, and you know it. Corvus cornix talk 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Dexter_Lehtinen Corvus cornix talk 06:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I see another editor agrees with me. Corvus cornix talk 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
and the date you retrieved it if it is online Corvus cornix talk 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So then why is it so difficult for you to add the actual links? Corvus cornix talk 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no way to know which of the cited news articles pertain to which claims in the article. Or indeed if any of them are relevant. Use inline citations, preferably to online sources. Dethme0w ( talk) 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, as Dethme0w said, inline citations are preferred, as are links to the online sources if available. I suggest using citation templates as well so your citations get a nice consistent format. As an example, I've converted one of the citations at Dexter Lehtinen to the {{cite web}} template. Hope this helps! Jfire ( talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
See? How difficult was that? I'm happy now. Corvus cornix talk 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And now you've re-added the bogus references. I've placed a {{refimprove}} tag. Provide links. Corvus cornix talk 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Callelinea/Archives ... your cleanups to articles listed in Category:Cuban contemporary artists are commendable, but what these articles really need is reliable sources to verify meeting the WP:BIO criteria ... please see Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists#Continuing deletions, and perhaps you would like to add your name to the list of editors on this fledgling project ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 14:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
Raúl Corrales Forno has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. "References and notability established" is not as informative as "Declined
Prod". Happy Editing! —
72.75.72.63 (
talk)
20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, none of these editors
have contributed to this "Cuban artists" checklist (although there have been limited dialogs on some talk pages) ... some of them either initiated or declined PRODs, and I have asked them politely to record their actions on the checklist (like renaming/merging articles) … I mean, declining a seconded PROD without even an edit summary? What's up with that?
Well, I'm sick of playing Sisyphus and cleaning up after them, so I have deleted these articles from my watchlist, and Some Other Editor can maintain/update it … or not.
In any event, it is time for me to MOVE ON. :-)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Callelinea/Archives ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?
Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 14:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Callelinea/Archives ...
As I was putting some lipstick on Grupo Antillano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I noticed that you were using "ISBN:" ... FYI, if you omit the colon (":") then the MediaWiki software will automagically link the ISBN to the search engine on WP:Book sources, e.g., " ISBN 978-0917571121" does not require any formatting, but "ISBN: 978-0917571121" is not recognized. :-)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 ( talk) 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
templates, but not this session. —
72.75.110.142 (
talk)
20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have deleted the article. I believe the G4 reasoning does not apply here as I explained in the Talk page of the article.. Additional references were provided and in-line citations. Callelinea ( talk) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your message to me on my Talk Page: Bias and lack of a neutral point of view is not indicated by a lack of inline citations, nor does pointing to such citations mitigate it as a problem. It is a problem that is inherent to your being the subject of the article, which cannot be resolved by a mere assertion by you to the contrary. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, maturity, objectivity and decency would understand this principle, and honor Wikipedia's mission by respecting its policies, not merely by upholding their letter, but their spirit as well, instead of engaging in wikilawyering by splitting hairs over whether a particular behavior is "prohibited" or "frowned upon" (and yes, my observation of your wikilawyering part of what WP is and not merely what I think it should be. See the wikilawyering passage on the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.) Creating an article about yourself is inherently wrong, and if you cannot bring yourself to admit this, then you are profoundly misinformed, and guided by a self-promotional agenda that is at odds with Wikipedia's mission, as indicated by various statements on your User Page. Nightscream ( talk) 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice update of this article. Corvus cornix talk 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on Belen. Maybe we can get this article cleaned up. I agree with you on athletics and just got reverted for my pains. But re-reverted. Hopefully the newbie won't be able how to go back more than one change! :) Student7 ( talk) 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to talk to you about the notability of a few people on the Alumni list.
I'm not sure if these men meet the Wikipedia standards of notability as put forth by WP:NOTE. Now, I understand that you believe that people shouldn't have to stand up the a high degree of notability on Wikipedia, but that is not the common consensus.
I'm hoping we, as two educated men, can iron this out. -- Rabbethan 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job with the Notable Alumni page. -- Rabbethan 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your excellent work on the Belen Alumni page. -- Rabbethan 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hi! Again thanks for all your contribs to Cuba-related articles. A simple request; would you mind to assess articles that you tag with {{ WP Cuba}}. Oh and one more thing... Thanks :)— Navy Blue formerly iDosh 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That states the Belen faculty confiscated and burnt the school newspaper.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Belen_Jesuit_Preparatory_School&diff=197244933&oldid=197166658 64.238.174.69 ( talk)
I have removed the two staffers you readded to her page. As the two individuals do not have Wikipedia biographies, it is likely that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. You also have a CoI since one of them is you. "Bill Burlew" -wikipedia only nets 179 Google hits, and he appears to share his name with at least one other person, and a search of your name -wikipedia nets only 29 hits. Horologium (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the court case you mentioned in the afd, this one, it doesn't make him inherently notable just for being in a lawsuit. It tells us nothing about the writer other than that their song was the center of a lawsuit. Furthermore, there is nothing else about Perdew that makes him notable. That information is most certainly pertinent to Prop Me Up Beside the Jukebox (If I Die), but it's not enough to carry Perdew's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion on a page that I noticed that you commented on. I am interested by your user page and agree with your ideas and policies. I was wondering if you might be interested in looking through the comments as seeing what you think. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzoJames ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Gracias por haber votado a mi favor en la discusión de borrado de mi biografía en la Wikipedia en inglés (soy Jorge Queirolo). Te dejo mi dirección de correo electrónico: jqueirolo@yahoo.com
Gracias nuevamente. Saludos.-- 201.239.134.185 ( talk) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)