• /Archive 1 < 6 November 2003
• /Archive 2 < 9 December 2003
• /Archive 3 < 21 January 2004
• /Archive 4 < 26 March 2004

Please append new messages at the end

Hello Viajero.

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

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

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

okay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm in need of community support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

You took me to task for the way I added a category of traditional pop singers, but failed to tell me just what I should have done to get it to sort correctly. I'm trying to get the hang of this whole category setup, but there is a lot I haven't figured out yet. Please keep your criticisms constructive. -- BRG 13:39, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

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