If your keyboard doesn't easily allow you to use accents, you can edit copy and paste from this list (please add to the list alphabetically any words you need accented):
My apologies for having taken so long to get back to you; I undertook to complete a few "small" projects here a few days ago, and, well, they turned out not to be so small. In any event, the redirect was no problem, and I thank you for changing it upon the move of the info to the presidency article. I'm no GFDL expert, and, indeed, my interpretations sometimes differ from those of others who are otherwise more GFDL-saavy, but I think we ought always to err on the side of preserving the contribution history until we're sure it's unnecessary (to be sure, redirects may someday become unwieldy [after all, List of honors earned by Hugo Chávez is an unlikely search], such that merges with preservation of contribution history and concomitant deletion might be required, but we're not yet there). Thanks, finally, for your kind words... :) Joe 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hola Sandy!, since a few days ago you were part of the conversation in this section of the Talk:Hugo Chávez, I was wondering if you can add your view on the issue of adding the Abstention stats in the main article, taking into account what I have added recently to the discussion, namely, the "Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política". Thank you! ( Caracas1830 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
Hi Sandy, I think you're doing a really good job on the Hugo Chavez page. Although I drop in to comment infrequently, it's on my watchlist and I follow the changes as much as I can. Keep up the good work.-- Zleitzen 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from this aritcle, I'm not one of the Chavistas or Fidelistas on Wikipedia. [1] I will not support the denial of the obvious, regardless of whether I have to stand up to either the Fidelistas or the fanatical opponents of the Chavez regime. The events of April 2002 were undeniably a coup. Do a search on LexisNexis and look up New York Times, AP, Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, etc. on the events; none make a practice out of avoiding reference to the coup as a "coup." Name a single respectable news media outlet that does not. (I cannot think of one.) If you're interested in responding, respond on the article talk page, not my talk page. Also, I'm not interested in hearing the old spiel about how the events weren't a coup because Chavez "resigned." 172 | Talk 03:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What is it that you particularly object to? Two words, concepts which go hand in hand: respect and arrogance. I certainly don't object to the revert of an atrocious article, which was a mess. My objection is that "we" (the collective we, a whole lot of editors) were working our tails off, respecting Wiki pillars and policies, taking everything to the talk page, commenting on the FARC, working towards consensus, being civil; while, on the other hand you (in particular) were one of few who refused to take an edit to the article talk page (and then rebuked me - above - for taking a second request to your talk page) [8], that you (in particular) never helped out or participated in the article talk page, as many of us were working our tails off, all the while "you" (the collective "you", not you in particular, and I don't even know who all comprises the collective "you", but it does include you, and it's not a fine example of Wiki collaboration and consensus) watched our futile efforts to fix the issues, should have seen that we were working hard together, never commented that we may be heading the wrong direction, and then without so much as a nod of your head, let us know what role we play in this grand sham. IF we were heading in completely the wrong direction, someone might have said something, as a whole lot of us were working our arses off. In addition, it's possible (I'm not really sure, since I haven't asked) that I was one of few editors of the article who is both fluent in English and familiar with Venezuela, so I in particular was doing a lot to try to figure out what editors wanted, what they were trying to say, and in correcting grammar, punctuation, and spelling (not something I am criticizing, just a fact of life, and I sure can't write as well in Spanish as many others did in English), so the work sure wasn't easy, but it was done with good faith and respect for the pillars. It just seemed that, while we were all respecting the way Wiki was supposed to work, our work was accorded no respect at all, because the collective "you" decided to revert the entire article without so much as the dignity of a talk page comment or participation in advance. So, I don't know how it works in the Cuban culture (as you indicated you've worked a lot on the Cuba articles), but respect is a big issue in the old Venezuelan culture (notwithstanding the deterioration of same introduced by Chavez and his hate-mongering), so if you're going to work with Venezuelans on the article, how about some respect ? IMO, your rebuke (above) of me, for raising a second request on your talk page was rude, uncivil, and insensitive. Check your arrogance. If the unacceptable tone of your first talk page message (above) to me isn't clear, doublecheck your arrogance. I hope I've been clear this time, and I don't mean to be offend, but it sometimes seems one has to speak very directly to be understood in written media. Sandy 20:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I see where you inserted this link FYI that case was inconclusive, and spearheaded by the two trolls who were later severely sanctioned by the arbcom. [11] [12] Referring to the complaints against me there puts you in bad company. I am not under arbcom sanctions; interestingly enough, the arbcom has ruled, "172 is a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest." 172 | Talk 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Posts from Zleitzen and SandyGeorgia, removed by User172 from his talk page as "harassment".
The Chavez article had deteriorated since it's featured article status before Christmas as you rightly point out, 172, reaching it's worst way before SandyGeorgia began editing. This editor was cutting down extraneous material, politely discussing issues, looking for consensus etc, improving the article which is why I praised the work alongside that of SuperFlanker only days before you entered the fray. Your initial revert about the 2002 coup had been discussed at length on the talk page and SandyGeorgia had made some excellent points in a discussion with others including myself. We discussed sources, bias, the meaning of words in relation to the article etc in a civil and productive manner. Personally I believe it was a coup - but I was prepared to provide legitimate sources that said otherwise, and did.
Yet everywhere I turn I find you unnecessarily treading on people's toes, demanding blocks on editors without due cause, talking about "Chavistas" and "Fidelistas", imposing your singular views on ambiguous subjects and so on. I notice you describe "the problems you've had with Cuba-related articles" and bemoan "the young English-speaking users on this site". Maybe it is worth some self-reflection on your part, that these problems are not the fault of other users. Besides, I don't know about other Cuba editors, but I haven't had found a dark hair on my head for a long time. At least you had the decency to eventually apologise to Sandy for supporting the reversion of a months worth of hard work improving the article. Maybe this signals a new approach on your part. Adios 172.-- Zleitzen 01:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Follow up on Zleitzen's page Sandy 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I did apologize for archving the talk page without consulting you. (I do not regret my decision to support WGee's restoration of the December 10 version, which dramatically improved the article following my copyedits.) Now, that being said, do you want the talk page restored? Rather than lashing out against me, you could simply ask me to restore the old talk page. I'd be happy to do it... There's no reason for you to walk around with a chip on your shoulders. This is a wiki; anything can be undone or redone anytime within seconds. By the way, I think you're being quite unfair to me in making so many angry accusations, though I'm willing to forgive and forget this. My communication could've been better, but I meant no disrespect to you; and my only goal was to improve the article. 172 | Talk 05:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, with respect to your comments on Zleitzen's talk page, it again appears that you are being obtuse about what my very clear objection to your behavior is (refusing to discuss edits on the talk page). I have not objected to the revert, just as I have not objected over the talk page archive (even though it was inappropriate), rather your refusal to build consensus or discuss edits on the article talk page. This occurred before the revert, and is similar to what occurred with the revert (failure to build consensus). I concur with User:Zleitzen's comments about the nature of the problem, and encourage you again to focus on fixing the article, rather than concocting conflict with me in areas where it doesn't exist. BTW, it's interesting how you keep all criticism, even friendly and courteous, off of your own talk page by 1) removing it, 2) demanding that I not respond on your talk page even after I requested you come to the article talk page, and 3) asking Zleitzen, "Finally, please don't respond to this post on my talk page." This makes it appear that you just want to create conflict on other user's talk pages, and keep yours pristine. It also appears to be a blatant double standard, as my objection to your behavior is exactly what you raise with Zleitzen: that you refused to discuss edits on the article talk page, degenerating a fairly simple issue into a series of distortions. If you continue to be obtuse, shall I return the favor, and demand that you stop posting to my talk page? Sandy 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
WGee, I have been unable to find the "commandeer" conversation referenced above, and can't recall where it was. If it's a concern, and if you can remember where you saw it, I'll be glad to add a note that it was in jest. Found the
conversation.
I will not have much time to do any updating I am concerned that you would revert six months worth of work on an article, that you don't have time to follow, considering the amount of repair needed as a result of the revert. It's not clear at all to me why you made, as your first edit to the series of Venezuelan articles, a major revert back to a six-month old version. It would seem that, if you felt that such a drastic revert was necessary, you would also be committed to working on and fixing the issues caused by the revert. I recognize that your time is limited, but it's curious that the time you did spend on editing Wiki articles since reverting Hugo Chávez was, for June 11; 00:27 - 03:14 on History of Russia, Sweden Democrats, and Communism, 17:43 - 18:29 on Front National (France), and 23:52 - 00:12 June 12 on Front National (France) and Chip Berlet. I do hope you plan to allocate some of your time to helping in the rebuild of Hugo Chávez, since the article is now outdated.
I have not seen the progress you mention in the article: references are missing and biased, links are dead, prose has problems, POV is still present, and the article is massively long, disregarding the daughter articles containing much of the same information in Summary Style. Further, it's going to get longer when the corrections needed because of the revert are added, and when the content from criticism is brought back to the main article because it was tagged in spite of succeeding in AfD. Your comments in the next response here seem to indicate that you think it's an acceptable version because it had featured status six months ago: during the six months that elapsed, the information became outdated. I'm concerned that it seems irresponsible to make a revert to such an old version, while not planning to make the changes necessary to bring the article up-to-date.
any Venezuelan with regular access to an Internet-enabled computer will most likely be a member of the middle or upper class, groups generally opposed to Chavez. That is why I am weary of actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement in the article.
WGee, I find this comment stunning. I'm shocked to see it in print, or that a secondary school student would have formulated such an opinion in so little time on Wiki. The Wiki recognition of inherent bias doesn't give free reign to discourage anyone from editing -- it reminds us to be aware of it! Further, if there is any truth to this statement, the same generalizations can be made about any country, including the USA, so it seems to me to be extremely prejudicial against Venezuelans. Further, it implies that anyone who is poor is pro-Chávez, while anyone who is not is anti-Chávez, which is exactly the kind of uninformed bias that exists in the article. (I correspond regularly with people in Venezuela via the internet, who are decidedly poor -- even poor people can find a computer to borrow in an oil wealthy country. How often have you traveled to Venezuela? I know exceedingly wealthy people who are chavistas, and poverty-stricken people who despise the man for misleading them and making them even more poor.) Additionally, consider the possibility (I would say the reality) that wealthier Venezuelans simply are not likely to give a hoot about the propoganda being spread on the internet or to do anything about it, while pro-Chávez groups, learning well from Fidel, have been very effective in propogating myth throughout the internet. I hope you'll reconsider the effect this kind of misinformed bias has on the integrity of Wiki, not to mention the real people (Venezuelans like SuperFlanker) who work hard on the article, doing their best to exercise good faith and respect NPOV, regardless of social class or political persuasion.
The current bias in the article seems to be precisely because Venezuelans, who knew the full story, were discouraged from editing. If people in ivory towers and academia, who haven't lived it and don't have access to the facts on the ground or know where to find facts in the non-English press or that didn't make it past BBC et al headline bias (which is exactly what the Chavez article suffers from) are building Wiki, while discouraging the input from any one of any size, shape, color, or political persuasion, then Wiki is inherently biased, period.
Further, what about assuming good faith? Your statement implies that people against Chávez, or the middle and upper classes, are not capable of NPOV and will be a source of bias. I would say, encourage all people to edit, and let the process sort out the bias and POV. By discouraging certain groups, you come closer to guaranteeing that the result will be POV, since the reading audience doesn't get a chance to see both sides. (As they didn't when an entire talk page went poof into archives.)
... weary of actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement in the article ??? I thought you were a secondary school student with only a few months on Wiki, little time to edit, and no past edit history in the Venezuelan articles? When did you become weary of Venezuelans? And would you consider that some of the vandalism and malicous edits are precisely because Venezuelans, both pro- and anti-Chávez, feel disempowered and disenfranchised by Wiki (over things like disrespectful reverts), and vandalize the article rather than making productive contributions? I'd rather see them all get involved, which is why I was willing to work so hard to correct grammar, punctuation, spelling of people whose comments weren't easy to follow in broken English, and help them contribute even when I didn't agree with their POV. I don't want anyone to feel left out -- the whole, and true story should be told from all sides. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? Sandy 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy
I'm unsure what to do about it. Looks as though it should be demoted. If not, it should be listed for major review at FAR.
Tony 14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect a major review is called for. Better to close it off, retaining its FA status (if it's not a clear demotion) before listing it.
I've been busy listing trashy FAs for major reviews today. There needs to be a good clean-out of lazy FAs. But each listing, I think, should have a clear, cogent set of reasons. Your assistance is appreciated. (Have a look at the current discussion at the talk page of the FAC room. Tony 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's WP:FAR, a merging of the previous FA Removal Candidates with an existing process. So it's only a few days old, but already the list is expanding rapidly. Tony 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez? Since it was your nomination, I'd like to hear your opinion on the new developments. Regards, Sandy 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There is so much going on with this article right now that I wouldn't dare to be involved for fear of being sucked into time-sapping disputes I can't be bothered with at the moment, but I want to say that from a safe distance you appear to have been putting in a solid effort on his entry and I hope you continue. I also find the comment you mentioned earlier on this talk page to be horrifying. Good luck. -- TJive 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Restoring for response Saravask comments to my talk page, which were reverted by him on 5 May 2006, following my oppose vote on his RFA.
This is in response to your latest comment. There may be some truth to your concerns about POV. Just for my own information, could you just list some info/facts in the Chavez articles that violate NPOV (other than the "coup" naming; for that you may want to list one or more refs)? Then you can set about correcting it (I can give advice if you want). I'm also wondering if the perceived POV is incapable of correction due to all the refs (are they excessively intimidating to new contributors, scaring them from entering corrections; or the balance of leftist (pro-Chavez) sources to anti-Chavez ones is too high). I myself don't anticipate working on those articles in the future. Good luck, and take care. Saravask 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I've ordered the tables in Súmate (and cleaned up the markup a bit). To get them in the right order all I did was move them into vertical order in the source. This should have worked for you, too (very curious). -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarvask, I apologize for my late response. To explain my previous silence, because you reverted your comments, I decided it was best (at that time) to respect your decision and not comment at all.
With the benefit of hindsight, I must extend a sincere apology to you for the stance I took with respect to the POV in the article during your RFA. Now that I am more aware of what you were up against in working on the Hugo Chávez article, I commend you for being able to accomplish what you did. Some of what has gone on in that article makes it difficult to assume good faith with all edits. Further, working on the article is difficult, due to the pro- and anti-Chávez fanaticism, sometimes complicated by issues of first language, and the need to read legalistic and other references in Spanish. I now fully understand your reluctance to work on the article, and doubt that I will continue there either.
To answer the question you had posed:
I hope this answers the questions you didn't raise (reference to your revert :-) and again, I apologize for the stance I took in your RFA with respect to the POV. Regards, Sandy 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that I knew him for long. I only encountered him a few days ago. -- TJive 12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Back to you in my talk.
No hard feelings, man. :-) I think it's best if I don't involve myself with the revert you mentioned, but either way I do hope you manage to get the Chavez stuff to a more balanced state. Take care. Saravask 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we really still need a citation for the sentence on footage of the coup, in the main article. The statement mentions mentions footage as "allegedly doctored", isn't that neutral enough?-- Salvador Allende 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you're busy: a few words. There are numerous daily errors in puncutation, spelling and grammar introduced into all the articles, along with incomplete references and errors in references. Some well meaning and helpful editors are not fluent in written English, and part of the daily work is cleanup: it goes with the territory, but I have days where I feel like the cleaning crew, and my prose, grammar and spelling aren't great either! I just combined all of the comments from several different articles into the Criticism article, and am just beginning on it. I chose it first since I don't see how we can pare down the main article without first addressing the daughter articles, one by one -- cleaning them up, referencing them, seeing what's there. If you make it to the criticism article, tread lightly, as it's still in very bad shape, mostly unreferenced, incomplete, and a compilation of a lot of writing from a lot of places. It will take me days to get it to a place where it's workable, and in the meantime, unreferenced, incomplete statements get added. Have fun. Sandy 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that legitimate criticism about a communist President is nonsence. America has elected Communists to office as our President too. A communist can be the head of a Republic. Communist is the basis of government rule, this can be done outside of a Dictatorship, and under Marx's Manifesto, the existance of a Dictatorship would be contrary to the Communist government. Any good communist would be eligible to hold a ruling position. The people of Venezuela appear to want to live in a Communist State. That's Okay for them. But it does not make it nonsense.
Oh, and making legitimate arguments in Wikipedia, is not considered Vandalism. The definition is clear and quite easily understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkWolf ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 July 2006
Can anyone teach me how to edit and fix categories? Why is Sumate alphabeticized under C, and how does it get fixed in Category:Hugo Chávez ? And, how do I get bios to alphabeticize under last name, rather than first name, in Category:Tourette syndrome? TIA, Sandy 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
As one of the editors presently working on the Hugo Chavez article, I wondered if you could take a look at the above page. I'm interested in the lower section - as it crosses into one of my editing areas - including Healthcare of Cuba. I wondered if you could add any comments to the Mission Barrio Adentro talk page, I'm interested in what kind of response people have to the material presented as it may need some work.-- Zleitzen 03:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
While I was not particularly offended by your comment, it did seem as though it was intended to question my competence as an editor. However, since that was evidently not its purpose, let's drop the issue, apology accepted.
You claimed that 172's participation effects discord amongst the editors, but that's not what I've gathered from my observations. It appears that you are the only editor who finds 172 and/or his contributions disagreeable; there is not a general atmosphere of discontent. Also, 172 did not rewrite the lead; rather, he simply merged a few paragraphs to improve structure and readability, and slightly altered the wording to improve fluidity.
Thus, you shouldn't label someone a source of discord merely because they make some edits with which you don't agree (otherwise, Flanker and I would be a "sources of discord", as well). And he is certainly not creating an obstacle to FA status, as you suggested. In fact, I see no reason why you would say such a thing, since his contributions to both the talk page and the article are overwhelmingly constructive. I think you are overreacting to 172's contributions and unjustly treating him as though he doesn't belong in the discussion. I suggest you abandon your apparant dislike of him and begin to work with him cordially like you would any other editor.
-- WGee 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I argue, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez may very well be the most POV article in all of those related to the topic, and it has nothing to do with the name. All of this was inevitable Sandy, that article had to go through the same rigorous standard of the mother article, all that has changed was the starting point and that the decision was taken today instead of god knows the mother article was finished. Flanker 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I've told you why I don't believe the removal of certain critics' claims effects a pro-Chavez bias. Please explain how the removal of portions of uncountered criticism, without a reduction in the actual size of the criticism section, would make the article pro-Chavez. -- WGee 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The prose was referenced, conforms to WP:RS and does not violate WP:BLP please do not remove. You want to debate it fine in the talk page, but your deletion is not conducive to an encyclopedia. Flanker 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hola. Primero que nada yo no presumo buena fe de gente que edita articulos agregando información no neutral como el de Hugo Chávez, y sobre lo de Norberto Cerole tiene razón lo he imculpado erroneamente, fue un error de mi parte mencionarle a usted, me confundí de articulo. Bye.-- K4zem 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
May go away for some time. But will always come back. Cheers. Anagnorisis 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I can't keep up with the Chavez pages, it's moving very fast and it's too difficult to know what's coming or going. I may set some time aside to look at the crit page and take a look at what has been deleted - the last time I looked I couldn't figure why some of the material was going. -- Zleitzen 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, AAAAA. Your contributions to Lilian Cristina Aya Ramirez have been deleted (not by me :-) per WP:BLP (all criticism of living persons must be well-sourced), and WP:V, which says blogs aren't usually reliable sources. I've searched the intenet and El Universal, looking for reliable sources for the important information from Reconocelos, but have found nothing. I'm not very good at searches in Spanish, and don't know the press in Peru; perhaps that is the best place to look. I hope you're able to help locate information from a reliable source, so the information can be returned to the article. Sandy 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, While I agree with you that Chávez's comments are important, and anti-Semitic, I think Flanker is right that the content regarding the incident on the main Hugo Chávez page should be cut down with a link to a main page on Venezuelan-Israeli relations. Republitarian 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha. True. Read the article. Looks documented and supported. Besides, it is true regarding Chavez looking to pick up a new diplomatic fight. He seems to get a kick out of doing it, as shown by his pattern of fighting with a different country about every 3 months (Mexico, Peru, Israel, etc.). Cheers Anagnorisis 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if there are any more Venezuela-related votes, like the merge vote, please point them out and I'll try and help you - by voting, as I'm not a fan of Hugo n' company. Respectfully, Republitarian 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Making false vandaliam claims or threatening to is not the sign of a serious editor so if you want to negotiate seriously please dont talk rubbish or muddle a seriousd POV dispute with vandalism (policy is very clear on this and you are POV pushing by trying to distort policy). The fact that you are using Vandalsim templates to pursue tyour POV policy will have to be reported as harrassment if it continues. Please dont muddle a POV dispute (which there is an abundance of evidence to prove this is) and vandalism. You haven't even referenced your claim, I bet you the Venezuelan government for one would disagree with you, SqueakBox 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have warned the user about all of this, and told him that he should just accept that Pedro Carmona was president for the day. There is no need to fear him, unless, of course, you don't want to get involved; this type of thing that he does is what drives away users from Wikipedia. Please don't let it happen to you. Please note that if SqueakBox removes the infobox from the article, revert it. The three-revert rule does not apply to this. Let me know if you need further help. Regards and thanks, Iola k ana| T 13:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I decided to answer leaving a comment in that page [19]. Cheers. Anagnorisis 00:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but please wait to edit further on this page until tomorrow. I have lots I'm adding tonight. Respectfully, Republitarian 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the external links to refs on Tarek William Saab. If you have time, I just noticed that Carlos Andrés Pérez has neither refs nor links. I saw that you mentioned a recent news article about the Israeli-Venezuelan relationship, but my Spanish es muy bad so if there's good info, someone else will have to add it to Venezuelan-Israeli relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be interested in United States-Venezuela relations. It's in a very poor and largely neglected state. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your last two edits to Venezuelan-Israeli relations, made on August 15, were reverted K4zem. I actually agree with him on this, but I thought you should know. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad you've decided to pick up the accents on Chavez, but that has permanently messed up all the references, since most of the newspaper articles and other references did not have accents :-) No way to fix it now, but please stop. This work has to be done manually. Sandy 19:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a disconnect between our policy (bad fair use images should be deleted within forty-eight hours) and our practice (tag them with a template indicating a problem which puts them into a week-long deletion queue, and discuss them endlessly if someone objects to their deletion). There are also more "dealing with fair use" templates than even I can remember. This is not just inefficient, it is also confusing. This will get sorted out eventually, but for now, you can see what I've done at Image:Chavezsurvivescoup.JPG and Image:October1993crisis.jpg. For all I know the former is some sort of uniquely iconic photograph that articles have been written about (although I doubt it), but we need to demonstrate that and discuss it, otherwise we're just using a convenient AP photo to illustrate our article. Jkelly 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This is unacceptable. Take this to arbitration. Republitarian 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. He accuses me of vote stacking, and then of selectively contacting users. I showed him his error and now he's trying to cover it up with technicalities. My patience is through. I'm working on Israel-Japan relations for the next week or so. Unless someone tries something destructive and pointless, like an Afd, don't expect much interaction on Venezuela-pages from me. All the best, Republitarian 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
God knows I can't be on wikipedia all day. I'm glad to see that there are people trying to combat the chavistas and Fidelistas on Wikipedia and Wikinews.I do the little I can with the time I ahve to make sure Wikinews does't get radicalized. I believe there should be a serious investigation done into who is writing the wiki articles and editing venezuelan articles in favor of Chavez. It seems there are army Pro-Chavez wikipedians going from article to article making it Pro-Chavez, Aleksander Byod has commented on this many times.
As one who enjoys wikipedia and defends it as a valid source capable of being cited in serious documentation, any Chavez article neutralizes that struggle this should't be about pro-Chavez or anti-Chavez, this should be about how (what I believe) are group of propagandists paid somehow by Chavistas to work full time on giving wikipedia a pro-chavez slant. --Carlitos (user:the 13th 4postle) 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Im beginning to think Wikipedia is a waste of time. The trail of looniness never ends... Republitarian 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a notice to the talk page of the article about the dispute. When you have time, please add a comment. Thanks, Iola k ana• T 14:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, since I have seen you around WP:PR and WP:FAC, I was actually hoping that you would give me your opinions. I'm out of town, so I have limited access to a computer, but I will address each of your concerns individually later. Thank you Sandy for the great peer review, and yes, I would love your help if you don't mind.-- enano ( Talk) 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Already reverted it. Anagnorisis 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As long as things that were in each article are not lost, and are all merged in one, it may make sense having just one. I do not know if it is a policy, but at least seems to be an ongoing practice. So the other editor may be right in wanting to have only one article. No problem. Cheers. Anagnorisis 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
To repeatedly bring up that point in history is not productive, and only serves to inflame tensions. Thus, I don't think that the incident should have been raised at all, on any talk page. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explanation.
I should have worded my edit summary more carefully to avoid offending you, but I do think that you should not categorize other people's comments using scare-quotes, or in any other fashion that would detract from the importance of a person's comments. I don't notice anything "aggressive" about my edit summaries in general, though. Your edit summaries, on the other hand, are quite inflammatory by my standards.
-- WGee 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can add a warning template. But if the user knows about the policies discussed in the warning template, and you are not neutral in the situation, then I think adding a template would not be productive.
In the past I was in a situation where I wanted an apology for a wrong doing. I learnt that in Wikipedia apologies are rarely extracted, and really are not that helpful anyway.
If the articles continue to be disrupted, RfCs have failed, and you can garner supporters (for want of a better word) perhaps arbitration is the appropriate next step.-- Commander Keane 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with any refs. My references are usually terribly laid out, not being a computer person I just don't think I have the technical mindset to format them correctly. I always try but inevitably make errors!-- Zleitzen 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Do Crtl+F on "Zionist." [21]. Keep up the good work ;). -a Friend. 4.249.3.7 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You left a comment on my talk page about referenes in the Chavez article. I did remove a few references, but as noted in the summary most were simply consolidations. As an example, there was a paragraph with 4 references to the same work; I removed the first three and expanded the page range on the last to accomodate. (All pages were within about 10 of each other, if memory serves.) CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll concede to your original request and not try to edit the article yet. I hope to discuss the article with you in more detail, though. You truly seem concrned about having this article done 'the right way', which puts you in a very small minority.
I'l try to put out the fires in the article for the meantime. Thanks for the WP:FAITH. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm amused that just after I took out the Amazon ranking reference and commented on the talk page I saw your comment that it wasn't relevant to the article. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all thanks for your ongoing balanced view of the Venezuela subject matter. You seem to be the only editor on that subject who can keep a level head. As far as you comment on the specifics of the referencing, i have performed further editing to fix matters in one article and i shall do the same to the other article within the next hour. best regards. Phasechange 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
READ BIBLIOGRAPHY and follow the links.. -- '''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ministerio de justicia del gobierno de Colombia -- '''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 23:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
So why did you revert my edits? They were sourced, and not from opinion websites like your edit summary would indicate. The possibly defamatory content is mr. Diaz's involvement in the death of his fan, which is reported in several reputable places, including a government website [22] (I guess I should've put that as a reference in the first place). Just google for her name and take a pick from the sources. - Bobet 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, it keeps being removed and I just keep putting it back. You'd think the number of daily reverts would convince people {{ POV}} was needed... In any case, I actually haven't been helping out much on the Chavez reverts today. I've been trying to rewrite the abc conjecture page, and it's just as need of revision—though at last it doesn't have vandals. Heh. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If your keyboard doesn't easily allow you to use accents, you can edit copy and paste from this list (please add to the list alphabetically any words you need accented):
My apologies for having taken so long to get back to you; I undertook to complete a few "small" projects here a few days ago, and, well, they turned out not to be so small. In any event, the redirect was no problem, and I thank you for changing it upon the move of the info to the presidency article. I'm no GFDL expert, and, indeed, my interpretations sometimes differ from those of others who are otherwise more GFDL-saavy, but I think we ought always to err on the side of preserving the contribution history until we're sure it's unnecessary (to be sure, redirects may someday become unwieldy [after all, List of honors earned by Hugo Chávez is an unlikely search], such that merges with preservation of contribution history and concomitant deletion might be required, but we're not yet there). Thanks, finally, for your kind words... :) Joe 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hola Sandy!, since a few days ago you were part of the conversation in this section of the Talk:Hugo Chávez, I was wondering if you can add your view on the issue of adding the Abstention stats in the main article, taking into account what I have added recently to the discussion, namely, the "Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política". Thank you! ( Caracas1830 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
Hi Sandy, I think you're doing a really good job on the Hugo Chavez page. Although I drop in to comment infrequently, it's on my watchlist and I follow the changes as much as I can. Keep up the good work.-- Zleitzen 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from this aritcle, I'm not one of the Chavistas or Fidelistas on Wikipedia. [1] I will not support the denial of the obvious, regardless of whether I have to stand up to either the Fidelistas or the fanatical opponents of the Chavez regime. The events of April 2002 were undeniably a coup. Do a search on LexisNexis and look up New York Times, AP, Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, etc. on the events; none make a practice out of avoiding reference to the coup as a "coup." Name a single respectable news media outlet that does not. (I cannot think of one.) If you're interested in responding, respond on the article talk page, not my talk page. Also, I'm not interested in hearing the old spiel about how the events weren't a coup because Chavez "resigned." 172 | Talk 03:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What is it that you particularly object to? Two words, concepts which go hand in hand: respect and arrogance. I certainly don't object to the revert of an atrocious article, which was a mess. My objection is that "we" (the collective we, a whole lot of editors) were working our tails off, respecting Wiki pillars and policies, taking everything to the talk page, commenting on the FARC, working towards consensus, being civil; while, on the other hand you (in particular) were one of few who refused to take an edit to the article talk page (and then rebuked me - above - for taking a second request to your talk page) [8], that you (in particular) never helped out or participated in the article talk page, as many of us were working our tails off, all the while "you" (the collective "you", not you in particular, and I don't even know who all comprises the collective "you", but it does include you, and it's not a fine example of Wiki collaboration and consensus) watched our futile efforts to fix the issues, should have seen that we were working hard together, never commented that we may be heading the wrong direction, and then without so much as a nod of your head, let us know what role we play in this grand sham. IF we were heading in completely the wrong direction, someone might have said something, as a whole lot of us were working our arses off. In addition, it's possible (I'm not really sure, since I haven't asked) that I was one of few editors of the article who is both fluent in English and familiar with Venezuela, so I in particular was doing a lot to try to figure out what editors wanted, what they were trying to say, and in correcting grammar, punctuation, and spelling (not something I am criticizing, just a fact of life, and I sure can't write as well in Spanish as many others did in English), so the work sure wasn't easy, but it was done with good faith and respect for the pillars. It just seemed that, while we were all respecting the way Wiki was supposed to work, our work was accorded no respect at all, because the collective "you" decided to revert the entire article without so much as the dignity of a talk page comment or participation in advance. So, I don't know how it works in the Cuban culture (as you indicated you've worked a lot on the Cuba articles), but respect is a big issue in the old Venezuelan culture (notwithstanding the deterioration of same introduced by Chavez and his hate-mongering), so if you're going to work with Venezuelans on the article, how about some respect ? IMO, your rebuke (above) of me, for raising a second request on your talk page was rude, uncivil, and insensitive. Check your arrogance. If the unacceptable tone of your first talk page message (above) to me isn't clear, doublecheck your arrogance. I hope I've been clear this time, and I don't mean to be offend, but it sometimes seems one has to speak very directly to be understood in written media. Sandy 20:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I see where you inserted this link FYI that case was inconclusive, and spearheaded by the two trolls who were later severely sanctioned by the arbcom. [11] [12] Referring to the complaints against me there puts you in bad company. I am not under arbcom sanctions; interestingly enough, the arbcom has ruled, "172 is a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest." 172 | Talk 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Posts from Zleitzen and SandyGeorgia, removed by User172 from his talk page as "harassment".
The Chavez article had deteriorated since it's featured article status before Christmas as you rightly point out, 172, reaching it's worst way before SandyGeorgia began editing. This editor was cutting down extraneous material, politely discussing issues, looking for consensus etc, improving the article which is why I praised the work alongside that of SuperFlanker only days before you entered the fray. Your initial revert about the 2002 coup had been discussed at length on the talk page and SandyGeorgia had made some excellent points in a discussion with others including myself. We discussed sources, bias, the meaning of words in relation to the article etc in a civil and productive manner. Personally I believe it was a coup - but I was prepared to provide legitimate sources that said otherwise, and did.
Yet everywhere I turn I find you unnecessarily treading on people's toes, demanding blocks on editors without due cause, talking about "Chavistas" and "Fidelistas", imposing your singular views on ambiguous subjects and so on. I notice you describe "the problems you've had with Cuba-related articles" and bemoan "the young English-speaking users on this site". Maybe it is worth some self-reflection on your part, that these problems are not the fault of other users. Besides, I don't know about other Cuba editors, but I haven't had found a dark hair on my head for a long time. At least you had the decency to eventually apologise to Sandy for supporting the reversion of a months worth of hard work improving the article. Maybe this signals a new approach on your part. Adios 172.-- Zleitzen 01:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Follow up on Zleitzen's page Sandy 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I did apologize for archving the talk page without consulting you. (I do not regret my decision to support WGee's restoration of the December 10 version, which dramatically improved the article following my copyedits.) Now, that being said, do you want the talk page restored? Rather than lashing out against me, you could simply ask me to restore the old talk page. I'd be happy to do it... There's no reason for you to walk around with a chip on your shoulders. This is a wiki; anything can be undone or redone anytime within seconds. By the way, I think you're being quite unfair to me in making so many angry accusations, though I'm willing to forgive and forget this. My communication could've been better, but I meant no disrespect to you; and my only goal was to improve the article. 172 | Talk 05:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, with respect to your comments on Zleitzen's talk page, it again appears that you are being obtuse about what my very clear objection to your behavior is (refusing to discuss edits on the talk page). I have not objected to the revert, just as I have not objected over the talk page archive (even though it was inappropriate), rather your refusal to build consensus or discuss edits on the article talk page. This occurred before the revert, and is similar to what occurred with the revert (failure to build consensus). I concur with User:Zleitzen's comments about the nature of the problem, and encourage you again to focus on fixing the article, rather than concocting conflict with me in areas where it doesn't exist. BTW, it's interesting how you keep all criticism, even friendly and courteous, off of your own talk page by 1) removing it, 2) demanding that I not respond on your talk page even after I requested you come to the article talk page, and 3) asking Zleitzen, "Finally, please don't respond to this post on my talk page." This makes it appear that you just want to create conflict on other user's talk pages, and keep yours pristine. It also appears to be a blatant double standard, as my objection to your behavior is exactly what you raise with Zleitzen: that you refused to discuss edits on the article talk page, degenerating a fairly simple issue into a series of distortions. If you continue to be obtuse, shall I return the favor, and demand that you stop posting to my talk page? Sandy 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
WGee, I have been unable to find the "commandeer" conversation referenced above, and can't recall where it was. If it's a concern, and if you can remember where you saw it, I'll be glad to add a note that it was in jest. Found the
conversation.
I will not have much time to do any updating I am concerned that you would revert six months worth of work on an article, that you don't have time to follow, considering the amount of repair needed as a result of the revert. It's not clear at all to me why you made, as your first edit to the series of Venezuelan articles, a major revert back to a six-month old version. It would seem that, if you felt that such a drastic revert was necessary, you would also be committed to working on and fixing the issues caused by the revert. I recognize that your time is limited, but it's curious that the time you did spend on editing Wiki articles since reverting Hugo Chávez was, for June 11; 00:27 - 03:14 on History of Russia, Sweden Democrats, and Communism, 17:43 - 18:29 on Front National (France), and 23:52 - 00:12 June 12 on Front National (France) and Chip Berlet. I do hope you plan to allocate some of your time to helping in the rebuild of Hugo Chávez, since the article is now outdated.
I have not seen the progress you mention in the article: references are missing and biased, links are dead, prose has problems, POV is still present, and the article is massively long, disregarding the daughter articles containing much of the same information in Summary Style. Further, it's going to get longer when the corrections needed because of the revert are added, and when the content from criticism is brought back to the main article because it was tagged in spite of succeeding in AfD. Your comments in the next response here seem to indicate that you think it's an acceptable version because it had featured status six months ago: during the six months that elapsed, the information became outdated. I'm concerned that it seems irresponsible to make a revert to such an old version, while not planning to make the changes necessary to bring the article up-to-date.
any Venezuelan with regular access to an Internet-enabled computer will most likely be a member of the middle or upper class, groups generally opposed to Chavez. That is why I am weary of actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement in the article.
WGee, I find this comment stunning. I'm shocked to see it in print, or that a secondary school student would have formulated such an opinion in so little time on Wiki. The Wiki recognition of inherent bias doesn't give free reign to discourage anyone from editing -- it reminds us to be aware of it! Further, if there is any truth to this statement, the same generalizations can be made about any country, including the USA, so it seems to me to be extremely prejudicial against Venezuelans. Further, it implies that anyone who is poor is pro-Chávez, while anyone who is not is anti-Chávez, which is exactly the kind of uninformed bias that exists in the article. (I correspond regularly with people in Venezuela via the internet, who are decidedly poor -- even poor people can find a computer to borrow in an oil wealthy country. How often have you traveled to Venezuela? I know exceedingly wealthy people who are chavistas, and poverty-stricken people who despise the man for misleading them and making them even more poor.) Additionally, consider the possibility (I would say the reality) that wealthier Venezuelans simply are not likely to give a hoot about the propoganda being spread on the internet or to do anything about it, while pro-Chávez groups, learning well from Fidel, have been very effective in propogating myth throughout the internet. I hope you'll reconsider the effect this kind of misinformed bias has on the integrity of Wiki, not to mention the real people (Venezuelans like SuperFlanker) who work hard on the article, doing their best to exercise good faith and respect NPOV, regardless of social class or political persuasion.
The current bias in the article seems to be precisely because Venezuelans, who knew the full story, were discouraged from editing. If people in ivory towers and academia, who haven't lived it and don't have access to the facts on the ground or know where to find facts in the non-English press or that didn't make it past BBC et al headline bias (which is exactly what the Chavez article suffers from) are building Wiki, while discouraging the input from any one of any size, shape, color, or political persuasion, then Wiki is inherently biased, period.
Further, what about assuming good faith? Your statement implies that people against Chávez, or the middle and upper classes, are not capable of NPOV and will be a source of bias. I would say, encourage all people to edit, and let the process sort out the bias and POV. By discouraging certain groups, you come closer to guaranteeing that the result will be POV, since the reading audience doesn't get a chance to see both sides. (As they didn't when an entire talk page went poof into archives.)
... weary of actively encouraging Venezuelan involvement in the article ??? I thought you were a secondary school student with only a few months on Wiki, little time to edit, and no past edit history in the Venezuelan articles? When did you become weary of Venezuelans? And would you consider that some of the vandalism and malicous edits are precisely because Venezuelans, both pro- and anti-Chávez, feel disempowered and disenfranchised by Wiki (over things like disrespectful reverts), and vandalize the article rather than making productive contributions? I'd rather see them all get involved, which is why I was willing to work so hard to correct grammar, punctuation, spelling of people whose comments weren't easy to follow in broken English, and help them contribute even when I didn't agree with their POV. I don't want anyone to feel left out -- the whole, and true story should be told from all sides. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? Sandy 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy
I'm unsure what to do about it. Looks as though it should be demoted. If not, it should be listed for major review at FAR.
Tony 14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect a major review is called for. Better to close it off, retaining its FA status (if it's not a clear demotion) before listing it.
I've been busy listing trashy FAs for major reviews today. There needs to be a good clean-out of lazy FAs. But each listing, I think, should have a clear, cogent set of reasons. Your assistance is appreciated. (Have a look at the current discussion at the talk page of the FAC room. Tony 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's WP:FAR, a merging of the previous FA Removal Candidates with an existing process. So it's only a few days old, but already the list is expanding rapidly. Tony 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez? Since it was your nomination, I'd like to hear your opinion on the new developments. Regards, Sandy 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There is so much going on with this article right now that I wouldn't dare to be involved for fear of being sucked into time-sapping disputes I can't be bothered with at the moment, but I want to say that from a safe distance you appear to have been putting in a solid effort on his entry and I hope you continue. I also find the comment you mentioned earlier on this talk page to be horrifying. Good luck. -- TJive 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Restoring for response Saravask comments to my talk page, which were reverted by him on 5 May 2006, following my oppose vote on his RFA.
This is in response to your latest comment. There may be some truth to your concerns about POV. Just for my own information, could you just list some info/facts in the Chavez articles that violate NPOV (other than the "coup" naming; for that you may want to list one or more refs)? Then you can set about correcting it (I can give advice if you want). I'm also wondering if the perceived POV is incapable of correction due to all the refs (are they excessively intimidating to new contributors, scaring them from entering corrections; or the balance of leftist (pro-Chavez) sources to anti-Chavez ones is too high). I myself don't anticipate working on those articles in the future. Good luck, and take care. Saravask 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I've ordered the tables in Súmate (and cleaned up the markup a bit). To get them in the right order all I did was move them into vertical order in the source. This should have worked for you, too (very curious). -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarvask, I apologize for my late response. To explain my previous silence, because you reverted your comments, I decided it was best (at that time) to respect your decision and not comment at all.
With the benefit of hindsight, I must extend a sincere apology to you for the stance I took with respect to the POV in the article during your RFA. Now that I am more aware of what you were up against in working on the Hugo Chávez article, I commend you for being able to accomplish what you did. Some of what has gone on in that article makes it difficult to assume good faith with all edits. Further, working on the article is difficult, due to the pro- and anti-Chávez fanaticism, sometimes complicated by issues of first language, and the need to read legalistic and other references in Spanish. I now fully understand your reluctance to work on the article, and doubt that I will continue there either.
To answer the question you had posed:
I hope this answers the questions you didn't raise (reference to your revert :-) and again, I apologize for the stance I took in your RFA with respect to the POV. Regards, Sandy 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that I knew him for long. I only encountered him a few days ago. -- TJive 12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Back to you in my talk.
No hard feelings, man. :-) I think it's best if I don't involve myself with the revert you mentioned, but either way I do hope you manage to get the Chavez stuff to a more balanced state. Take care. Saravask 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we really still need a citation for the sentence on footage of the coup, in the main article. The statement mentions mentions footage as "allegedly doctored", isn't that neutral enough?-- Salvador Allende 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you're busy: a few words. There are numerous daily errors in puncutation, spelling and grammar introduced into all the articles, along with incomplete references and errors in references. Some well meaning and helpful editors are not fluent in written English, and part of the daily work is cleanup: it goes with the territory, but I have days where I feel like the cleaning crew, and my prose, grammar and spelling aren't great either! I just combined all of the comments from several different articles into the Criticism article, and am just beginning on it. I chose it first since I don't see how we can pare down the main article without first addressing the daughter articles, one by one -- cleaning them up, referencing them, seeing what's there. If you make it to the criticism article, tread lightly, as it's still in very bad shape, mostly unreferenced, incomplete, and a compilation of a lot of writing from a lot of places. It will take me days to get it to a place where it's workable, and in the meantime, unreferenced, incomplete statements get added. Have fun. Sandy 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that legitimate criticism about a communist President is nonsence. America has elected Communists to office as our President too. A communist can be the head of a Republic. Communist is the basis of government rule, this can be done outside of a Dictatorship, and under Marx's Manifesto, the existance of a Dictatorship would be contrary to the Communist government. Any good communist would be eligible to hold a ruling position. The people of Venezuela appear to want to live in a Communist State. That's Okay for them. But it does not make it nonsense.
Oh, and making legitimate arguments in Wikipedia, is not considered Vandalism. The definition is clear and quite easily understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkWolf ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 July 2006
Can anyone teach me how to edit and fix categories? Why is Sumate alphabeticized under C, and how does it get fixed in Category:Hugo Chávez ? And, how do I get bios to alphabeticize under last name, rather than first name, in Category:Tourette syndrome? TIA, Sandy 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
As one of the editors presently working on the Hugo Chavez article, I wondered if you could take a look at the above page. I'm interested in the lower section - as it crosses into one of my editing areas - including Healthcare of Cuba. I wondered if you could add any comments to the Mission Barrio Adentro talk page, I'm interested in what kind of response people have to the material presented as it may need some work.-- Zleitzen 03:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
While I was not particularly offended by your comment, it did seem as though it was intended to question my competence as an editor. However, since that was evidently not its purpose, let's drop the issue, apology accepted.
You claimed that 172's participation effects discord amongst the editors, but that's not what I've gathered from my observations. It appears that you are the only editor who finds 172 and/or his contributions disagreeable; there is not a general atmosphere of discontent. Also, 172 did not rewrite the lead; rather, he simply merged a few paragraphs to improve structure and readability, and slightly altered the wording to improve fluidity.
Thus, you shouldn't label someone a source of discord merely because they make some edits with which you don't agree (otherwise, Flanker and I would be a "sources of discord", as well). And he is certainly not creating an obstacle to FA status, as you suggested. In fact, I see no reason why you would say such a thing, since his contributions to both the talk page and the article are overwhelmingly constructive. I think you are overreacting to 172's contributions and unjustly treating him as though he doesn't belong in the discussion. I suggest you abandon your apparant dislike of him and begin to work with him cordially like you would any other editor.
-- WGee 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I argue, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez may very well be the most POV article in all of those related to the topic, and it has nothing to do with the name. All of this was inevitable Sandy, that article had to go through the same rigorous standard of the mother article, all that has changed was the starting point and that the decision was taken today instead of god knows the mother article was finished. Flanker 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I've told you why I don't believe the removal of certain critics' claims effects a pro-Chavez bias. Please explain how the removal of portions of uncountered criticism, without a reduction in the actual size of the criticism section, would make the article pro-Chavez. -- WGee 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The prose was referenced, conforms to WP:RS and does not violate WP:BLP please do not remove. You want to debate it fine in the talk page, but your deletion is not conducive to an encyclopedia. Flanker 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hola. Primero que nada yo no presumo buena fe de gente que edita articulos agregando información no neutral como el de Hugo Chávez, y sobre lo de Norberto Cerole tiene razón lo he imculpado erroneamente, fue un error de mi parte mencionarle a usted, me confundí de articulo. Bye.-- K4zem 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
May go away for some time. But will always come back. Cheers. Anagnorisis 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I can't keep up with the Chavez pages, it's moving very fast and it's too difficult to know what's coming or going. I may set some time aside to look at the crit page and take a look at what has been deleted - the last time I looked I couldn't figure why some of the material was going. -- Zleitzen 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, AAAAA. Your contributions to Lilian Cristina Aya Ramirez have been deleted (not by me :-) per WP:BLP (all criticism of living persons must be well-sourced), and WP:V, which says blogs aren't usually reliable sources. I've searched the intenet and El Universal, looking for reliable sources for the important information from Reconocelos, but have found nothing. I'm not very good at searches in Spanish, and don't know the press in Peru; perhaps that is the best place to look. I hope you're able to help locate information from a reliable source, so the information can be returned to the article. Sandy 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, While I agree with you that Chávez's comments are important, and anti-Semitic, I think Flanker is right that the content regarding the incident on the main Hugo Chávez page should be cut down with a link to a main page on Venezuelan-Israeli relations. Republitarian 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha. True. Read the article. Looks documented and supported. Besides, it is true regarding Chavez looking to pick up a new diplomatic fight. He seems to get a kick out of doing it, as shown by his pattern of fighting with a different country about every 3 months (Mexico, Peru, Israel, etc.). Cheers Anagnorisis 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if there are any more Venezuela-related votes, like the merge vote, please point them out and I'll try and help you - by voting, as I'm not a fan of Hugo n' company. Respectfully, Republitarian 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Making false vandaliam claims or threatening to is not the sign of a serious editor so if you want to negotiate seriously please dont talk rubbish or muddle a seriousd POV dispute with vandalism (policy is very clear on this and you are POV pushing by trying to distort policy). The fact that you are using Vandalsim templates to pursue tyour POV policy will have to be reported as harrassment if it continues. Please dont muddle a POV dispute (which there is an abundance of evidence to prove this is) and vandalism. You haven't even referenced your claim, I bet you the Venezuelan government for one would disagree with you, SqueakBox 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have warned the user about all of this, and told him that he should just accept that Pedro Carmona was president for the day. There is no need to fear him, unless, of course, you don't want to get involved; this type of thing that he does is what drives away users from Wikipedia. Please don't let it happen to you. Please note that if SqueakBox removes the infobox from the article, revert it. The three-revert rule does not apply to this. Let me know if you need further help. Regards and thanks, Iola k ana| T 13:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I decided to answer leaving a comment in that page [19]. Cheers. Anagnorisis 00:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but please wait to edit further on this page until tomorrow. I have lots I'm adding tonight. Respectfully, Republitarian 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the external links to refs on Tarek William Saab. If you have time, I just noticed that Carlos Andrés Pérez has neither refs nor links. I saw that you mentioned a recent news article about the Israeli-Venezuelan relationship, but my Spanish es muy bad so if there's good info, someone else will have to add it to Venezuelan-Israeli relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be interested in United States-Venezuela relations. It's in a very poor and largely neglected state. Respectfully, Republitarian 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your last two edits to Venezuelan-Israeli relations, made on August 15, were reverted K4zem. I actually agree with him on this, but I thought you should know. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad you've decided to pick up the accents on Chavez, but that has permanently messed up all the references, since most of the newspaper articles and other references did not have accents :-) No way to fix it now, but please stop. This work has to be done manually. Sandy 19:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a disconnect between our policy (bad fair use images should be deleted within forty-eight hours) and our practice (tag them with a template indicating a problem which puts them into a week-long deletion queue, and discuss them endlessly if someone objects to their deletion). There are also more "dealing with fair use" templates than even I can remember. This is not just inefficient, it is also confusing. This will get sorted out eventually, but for now, you can see what I've done at Image:Chavezsurvivescoup.JPG and Image:October1993crisis.jpg. For all I know the former is some sort of uniquely iconic photograph that articles have been written about (although I doubt it), but we need to demonstrate that and discuss it, otherwise we're just using a convenient AP photo to illustrate our article. Jkelly 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This is unacceptable. Take this to arbitration. Republitarian 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. He accuses me of vote stacking, and then of selectively contacting users. I showed him his error and now he's trying to cover it up with technicalities. My patience is through. I'm working on Israel-Japan relations for the next week or so. Unless someone tries something destructive and pointless, like an Afd, don't expect much interaction on Venezuela-pages from me. All the best, Republitarian 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
God knows I can't be on wikipedia all day. I'm glad to see that there are people trying to combat the chavistas and Fidelistas on Wikipedia and Wikinews.I do the little I can with the time I ahve to make sure Wikinews does't get radicalized. I believe there should be a serious investigation done into who is writing the wiki articles and editing venezuelan articles in favor of Chavez. It seems there are army Pro-Chavez wikipedians going from article to article making it Pro-Chavez, Aleksander Byod has commented on this many times.
As one who enjoys wikipedia and defends it as a valid source capable of being cited in serious documentation, any Chavez article neutralizes that struggle this should't be about pro-Chavez or anti-Chavez, this should be about how (what I believe) are group of propagandists paid somehow by Chavistas to work full time on giving wikipedia a pro-chavez slant. --Carlitos (user:the 13th 4postle) 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Im beginning to think Wikipedia is a waste of time. The trail of looniness never ends... Republitarian 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a notice to the talk page of the article about the dispute. When you have time, please add a comment. Thanks, Iola k ana• T 14:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, since I have seen you around WP:PR and WP:FAC, I was actually hoping that you would give me your opinions. I'm out of town, so I have limited access to a computer, but I will address each of your concerns individually later. Thank you Sandy for the great peer review, and yes, I would love your help if you don't mind.-- enano ( Talk) 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Already reverted it. Anagnorisis 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As long as things that were in each article are not lost, and are all merged in one, it may make sense having just one. I do not know if it is a policy, but at least seems to be an ongoing practice. So the other editor may be right in wanting to have only one article. No problem. Cheers. Anagnorisis 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
To repeatedly bring up that point in history is not productive, and only serves to inflame tensions. Thus, I don't think that the incident should have been raised at all, on any talk page. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explanation.
I should have worded my edit summary more carefully to avoid offending you, but I do think that you should not categorize other people's comments using scare-quotes, or in any other fashion that would detract from the importance of a person's comments. I don't notice anything "aggressive" about my edit summaries in general, though. Your edit summaries, on the other hand, are quite inflammatory by my standards.
-- WGee 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can add a warning template. But if the user knows about the policies discussed in the warning template, and you are not neutral in the situation, then I think adding a template would not be productive.
In the past I was in a situation where I wanted an apology for a wrong doing. I learnt that in Wikipedia apologies are rarely extracted, and really are not that helpful anyway.
If the articles continue to be disrupted, RfCs have failed, and you can garner supporters (for want of a better word) perhaps arbitration is the appropriate next step.-- Commander Keane 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with any refs. My references are usually terribly laid out, not being a computer person I just don't think I have the technical mindset to format them correctly. I always try but inevitably make errors!-- Zleitzen 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Do Crtl+F on "Zionist." [21]. Keep up the good work ;). -a Friend. 4.249.3.7 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You left a comment on my talk page about referenes in the Chavez article. I did remove a few references, but as noted in the summary most were simply consolidations. As an example, there was a paragraph with 4 references to the same work; I removed the first three and expanded the page range on the last to accomodate. (All pages were within about 10 of each other, if memory serves.) CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll concede to your original request and not try to edit the article yet. I hope to discuss the article with you in more detail, though. You truly seem concrned about having this article done 'the right way', which puts you in a very small minority.
I'l try to put out the fires in the article for the meantime. Thanks for the WP:FAITH. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm amused that just after I took out the Amazon ranking reference and commented on the talk page I saw your comment that it wasn't relevant to the article. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all thanks for your ongoing balanced view of the Venezuela subject matter. You seem to be the only editor on that subject who can keep a level head. As far as you comment on the specifics of the referencing, i have performed further editing to fix matters in one article and i shall do the same to the other article within the next hour. best regards. Phasechange 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
READ BIBLIOGRAPHY and follow the links.. -- '''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ministerio de justicia del gobierno de Colombia -- '''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 23:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
So why did you revert my edits? They were sourced, and not from opinion websites like your edit summary would indicate. The possibly defamatory content is mr. Diaz's involvement in the death of his fan, which is reported in several reputable places, including a government website [22] (I guess I should've put that as a reference in the first place). Just google for her name and take a pick from the sources. - Bobet 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, it keeps being removed and I just keep putting it back. You'd think the number of daily reverts would convince people {{ POV}} was needed... In any case, I actually haven't been helping out much on the Chavez reverts today. I've been trying to rewrite the abc conjecture page, and it's just as need of revision—though at last it doesn't have vandals. Heh. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)