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.

Happy New Year, Andreas! There is a question at the above I would appreciate your views on. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ohconfucius. I'll look into it tomorrow. -- JN 466 00:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Per [1], are you still needing accountcreator?

Regards, [ stwalkerster| talk 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, our project isn't completed yet; current status is here. The Christmas break interrupted the work; Noleander and I still have to identify and go through the various subcategories. I will let Courcelles or yourself know when we are done. -- JN 466 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for letting me know :) [ stwalkerster| talk 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, when Claudio Santos says:

"when emerged any contradiction, be it in the wording, I just prefered and I suggest to heed and follow the SPK version"

what is intended is that he will try to force a non-neutral and clearly pro-SPK view into the article. Of course, this is unacceptable and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia policies concerning neutrality.

The English Wikipedia has it that self-published sources when talking about themselves may be used with some limitations. The following limitations apply would apply to this case:

(1) the material is not unduly self-serving;

(5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Claudio Santos's proposal would clearly be against those principles, and although the truth is that the Spanish Wikipedia's policy on verifiability does not explicitly mention anything on the validity of self-published sources when talking about themselves, it would be very reasonable to apply these principles as per common sense and stick to outside sources in case a contradiction emerges... even if that means citing multiple contradictory sources, as in "The database A lists X as a terrorist group, even though the author B as well as X deny it". Otherwise, we would have to stick to sources from the RAF in case of contradiction between sources when talking about the RAF, and so on with any other organization.

I don't think I will keep posting here about things concerning the Spanish language Wikipedia. After all, I don't think it is advisable to carry out cross-wiki wars. But as I know that Claudio Santos will read this message, I will repeat my deep concern on the SPK having threatened to reveal two of the Spanish Wikipedia's sysops' true names without their consent for five years. I sincerely expect that Claudio Santos will be just as vehement in this case and compels the editor of the SPK website to remove immediately the threat against the Spanish Wikipedia sysops. Sabbut ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you concerning the use of self-published sources, and the implicit non-compliance with NPOV policy, and would welcome the removal of personal off-wiki threats as well. It does not solve anything. -- JN 466 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just want to drop you a line that I got your message and will get back to you in the next few days. Classes are starting back so its a busy week. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 04:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)