User talk:Zleitzen/Archive 4

thanks

I appreciate your words of encouragement. I picked up on Afro Latin Americans as a wikify and for some reason decided to rise to the challenge of working on it's POV. Now that I've invested more of my effort into it, I'd like to see it get to a good article level but I don't know if that will be possible. More than anything, I'm hoping that other's will add some useful, well-sourced material. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Santa Clara

Congratulations on this outstanding article! Your description of events is by far the best I have ever read, and a most valuable contribution to the "Che Guevara" series. -- Polaris999 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polaris. I think it still needs more work - and of course a few specific sources. Notably the rumours of payments. I had a look at it round the internet and there was one quite credible account I believe was from the son of one of the troops. At least it was credible enough to me to get an initial mention. Whether any source will pass WP:RS is another matter. Weighing up the claim, it has a certain ring of truth about it, it seems to centre around a comment made by Guevara "you weren't supposed to shoot". Though that the context of this could have been embellished or simply misconstrued - either that or Guevara is an out and out liar with a broad enough imagination to conjur up a vivid false picture of events. I think the reality is probably somewhere in between, as all stories of war generally are. Certainly not worthy of forming any substantial criticism or polemic against Guevara, as if it were the case that troops were bribed, I hardly think it changes the story very much. --Zleitzen 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zleitzen. I need to review CG's own account of the battle which I haven't looked at in ages. BTW I was wondering if you plan to implement any of Jmabel's ideas re getting rid of the POV tag, or should we pursue a different route (such as challenging its placement, for which we do have grounds)? -- Polaris999 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The present situation has all the hallmarks of the activity that engulfed the Fidel Castro article. Where various anon "sockpuppet" accounts were logging on to argue at length that this image [1] was a POV insult, and making various other recommendations that didn't seem to have much to do with improving an encylopedia article, or common sense. These interjections were accompanied by extreme vandalism and outrageous uncivil accusations against editors including myself. My efforts to alert admins came largely to nought (see this exchange for example[2] ) and thus I took the page off my watchlist - correcting only the major errors on the occasional basis that I take a look at the article. The placement of the tag should be accompanied by civil discourse on the talk page describing clearly why the tag was placed - this hasn't happened - so by rights the tag is bogus and should be removed.

On the other hand, unless the page, and good faith editors are supported by admins, I have no wish to engage in a dispute with an editor throwing around accusations - using sockpuppet accounts - and harrassing users on their talk pages. My move would be to add the criticism from left wing anarchists somehow (which I have mixed feelings about - the criticism is merely a broad and unfocused opinion from a marginal group - it doesn't illuminate the subject in any way) - and continue improving the article ignoring the dispute. But I'll support any efforts you make to resolve the situation. --Zleitzen 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zleitzen -- I am in total agreement with you on all the basic points. An FA really shouldn't have a POV tag on it for an extended period, so something will need to be done relatively soon. However, let's consider the options a bit longer ... BTW, how would you feel about eventually perhaps changing the title to "Legacy and Criticism" since the text of the section does indeed reflect both and you merged the two previously existing sections with those titles when you created it? -- Polaris999 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaris, if you think that adding "criticisms" to the section title would clarify the situation for editors that aren't following the lay-out of the page as I'd envisaged, then by all means make the amendments. --Zleitzen 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zleitzen -- I have always steered clear of the Legacy/Criticism section, only making edits to it in the case of glaring problems such as once when someone inserted two almost identical paragraphs into it. I would greatly prefer that you make the two changes you mention, which I think would be an excellent idea under the circumstances, and hopefully we can then move forward. How do you feel about this? -- Polaris999 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also been busy expanding the Cuban revolution series based on the template, writing the History will absolve me article, and creating a timeline if you care to check. And have created a Foco article to remove the conspicuous red link from the two Guevara pages. --Zleitzen 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you so much. I did notice your superb timeline of the Cuban Revolution and will be heading back over there soon to enjoy it in detail; I likewise look forward to reading the two new articles. The "Cuban Revolution" template you created certainly brings all aspects into focus. Re what you explained above concerning your awful experience with the FCR article, I most sincerely hope that, by working together to protect its integrity, serious editors will be able to prevent similar depredation from destroying CG. :-) Polaris999 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts about the Timeline: According to CG's records, RCR introduced him to FCR on 8 July 1955. I was also wondering if it might be worthwhile to include the date of Herbert Matthews' interview with FCR (17 Feb 1957 acc. to JLA, p 236) since that seems to have been a critical juncture in the history of the Revolution(?) -- Polaris999 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polaris. Some of the exact dates may not be correct - I scooped it directly from the Timeline of Cuban history which was compiled from various different sources and is very much a work in progress. I'll make an effort to check, improve and expand the article over time - adding details when I come across them. --Zleitzen 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Castro

Hi there,

I see where you were going with the change in the photo's caption however, I think by the uniform that its clear he's a rebel soldier, don't you? Lemme know.

Cheers,

Goatboy95 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goatboy.

I think he's likely to be a rebel deserter. I've just erred on the side of caution and have added a source. I hope such pics pass the strict copywrite laws on wikipedia - because the site I've referenced has some great photos for many articles. --Zleitzen 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism template issue

Although you and I have had differences of opinion on this issue, I did learn a lot from your arguments and I will use your advice in my future templates, articles and categories. Although I still belive State terrorism should have it own category, it is imperative that Wikipedia community agree on what is State terrorism is clearly as much as citable and credible opinion is out there. I am more interested in the subject matter rather than the examples, categories and templates as they will follow eventually. Thanks for your timeRaveenS

I also wanted to mention it was a pleasure to have debated with you on this. Though we were arguing on opposite sides of the debate, the points you raised were very much welcome and necessary I think as part of the constructive criticism process. We were perhaps a little envious to have you on our side of the debate. I think there is ample room for consensus amongst ourselves on this and I would be willing to negotiate this offline if you are interested. Cheers, Elalan 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings. Well I was in part playing devils advocate and giving you pair the kind of grilling that is sometimes helpful for future battles you may have. If you want to progress with this topic and minimise the potential for endless battles. My best recommendation is to never put anything on a controversial page until it his heavily worked and sourced in a sandbox first. Once you do put a heavily sourced and attributed section on a page, you should be relatively safe from challenges. And it would save a lot of arguing in the mean time! I don't think you'll have much luck in the long run with your template or category - unless you want to spend the next portion of your life arguing endlessly over the same topic. Good luck.--Zleitzen 05:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Preform

I hadn't dealt with Tannim before his repeated spamming of the unblock-en mailing list, so I'm not informed enough to tell if Preform is him or not. I have indicated on the list your suspicions, so that others who are more familiar with him might be able to tell. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Congratulations! I promise I will read it (but not tonight). Glad you stuck around. I've seen your name crop up, almost always with good work. Am I right that I've seen you on several things related to Che Guevara? - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. That's right. I've been trying to raise the standards of all the Cuban related articles (I have some 200 or so on my rounds) - not without its perils. I feel that they are starting to come together now, though I've needed to make thousands of edits in the process. In time I hope that they will be the best collection of nation articles on the encyclopedia, which is by no means impossible. I'd like to vastly improve the Jamaica and Haiti areas as well. I haven't done a lot on the Guevara article in that time, but then it was by far the best Cuban related page I'd seen before I put it on my watchlist. In fact it is one of the best pieces one could read on Guevara anywhere. Certainly in terms of attention to detail. Kudos to Polaris yourself and others.--Zleitzen 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful feature article

Looks like it was joyfully created and wonderfully done. Different than the pestering Fidel Castro experience, I bet. You deserve it. Congrats! Mattisse (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Beautiful User and Talk pages. Thought you weren't technically inclined. (Maybe I'l copy it -- would you mind?) Mattisse (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for your great reponse, Matisse. Be my guest and steal what you can. I stole it off someone else! But I'm still working out how to arrange the text and so on via trial and error. The Castro article hasn't improved significantly since you dipped out, I check it occasionally and weed out the occasional error that I see, but it seems as though it would take a long time before it gets any major improvement at this rate. At least some of the incivility has died down I see. By the way, as I know you are a stickler for sourced articles, did you see how many I used on the British African-Caribbean community article, 113 sources! I hope you're impressed :) --Zleitzen 12:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed! They are well placed also. I too check out the Castro article occasionally. So much is about to happen in Cuba. Maybe the time will become right to try it again. I had a wonderful time doing articles about India for awhile but now there is religious/ethnic squabbling that I can't enter into, so I've backed off and am doing other stuff for now. Mattisse (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey there - thanks for the vandal revert - looks like I missed all the fun :-) Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a note on how to calculate prose size. I'm not going to wade into the Chavez POV wasteland until the time comes that others there show a genuine interest in addressing the issues (and I don't see that happening anytime soon), but FYI:

Chavez, 117 KB overall, a WHOPPING 69 KB prose

Guevara, 105KB overall, a decent 48KB prose.

On FAC, people start to get nervous about prose size at around 45KB. Chavez is WAY over the line on size, and it's completely unnecessary, since most of the old info is in daughter articles already. We were working productively and consensually on reducing the size before the WGee/172 revert, and work conveniently halted after I had exorcised the "criticism" to daughter articles. Sandy (Talk) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was wrong and you were right! It probably won't be for the last time. Cheers Sandy.--Zleitzen 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you for the banstar, it's much appreciated. It also remainded me that I haven't contributed a lot to Cuba related articles lately, but I will be back (actually I'll be back in Cuba next week). Thanks again. --Qyd 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varadero entry

Hi there, Zleitzen:

Could you take a look at the Varadero entry? I just reverted an edit - see discussion page. I'd like to come to some agreement on how to handle that paragraph. Essentially, the practice of barring Cubans entry stems from the government, since they control the tourism industry. However, I do think we might want to add a sentence stating something to the effect of: "the practice seems to have been waning over the past few years" - as although I've experienced the practice recently, it's not as prevalent as in past years. Can you put your objective two cents in?

Many thanks.

Goatboy95 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Goatboy. This issue has a fair bit of backstory on wikipedia, and I am at present trying to clarify and get to the bottom of this on other pages. This isn't easy because despite peoples' personal experiences, there is a real dearth of sources on recent practices. But I am compiling various bits and bobs for a future reworking where I hope everyone can come to an agreement. To make matters worse, the "tourist apartheid" business - which is detailed on Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba - also got mixed up in a horrendous unrelated wikipedia-wide dispute where certain users were trying to write about "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" - seemingly designed as an attack page against that nation. See talk page of the Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba article, and Allegations of apartheid for some idea of the mess created.--Zleitzen 05:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

I asked for that to be semi-protected again - and it worked ! -- Beardo 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again -- advice requested!

Hello again Zleitzen, I have a question. How do you manage to focus and work in peace? Did you write your article in a user space? (I deserted some Cuba articles I started, because I began to receive flack.) How do you manage it? Say a little prayer for me. This place perplexes me.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival - not initiated by me but rather by someone seeking to help me, but it provoked this:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse

Then there are other conversations going on all over about me (some in shadowy places). Would you ever have guessed it? Somewhere on your front page you said that Fidel Castro was one of the most edited articles on Wikipedia, behind the Pope and ahead of Britney Spears. Well, I must be one of the most talked about "virtual people" here. Would you ever have thought that would be the case? Am I destined for fame? Should I write a book? Do you want my autograph? Virtually yours, Mattisse (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar / Cuba

Dear Z - thank you for the barnstar. But if anyone deserves a barnstar it is you. (Is it bad form to immediately return a barnstar to the giver ?) Really, I am constantly impressed by all your contributions.

And, no, I hadn't come upon the portal before. I hope that I can make a contribution. Thanks -- Beardo 11:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Beardo. There is definately an improved atmosphere on the Cuba articles and they do seem to be expanding and improving thanks in large part to this. (until some new lunatic comes along no doubt). I'm still shocked at the standard of some articles though - the History of Cuba article is very poor for example. Perhaps the portal - and a revived Wikipedia:WikiProject Cuba will help focus editors on some of the problems?--Zleitzen 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez

Have left a comment on your other ID about the Chavez article.--Zleitzen 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zleitzen - I try to check in there very infrequently, since the watchlist is tedious and distracts from productive work. Once elections are over, some of the POV tendencies may subside towards the holidays (if it's ever going to happen). I'll try to wade back in if I see that things subside and that others have a genuine interest in NPOVing, but if it remains futile, I'd rather avoid them as often as possible. Will check later - thanks for trying, and thanks for letting me know, Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 12:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied you Talk page working on FA

I'm working on a suite of hopeful FA articles with a person who knows the subject matter: Hoysala Empire, Hoysala architecture etc. so I have been scrutinising British African-Caribbean community for tips. It is a great article. Also, I have an offical Wikipedia Advocate now who is quietly doing little things behind the scenes. Peace has fallen upon me. Plus changing the Talk page to yours stops people from taking it over. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments Matisse. One of my guides was the Che Guevara article which I highly recommend - and where I stole the concept of "content notes" from, they can be very helpful in explaining confusing details without breaking the flow of the article. Concerning your comments above, I've also been reading your excellant improvements to the Haitian revolution page which is an article I would like to contribute to in time. Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I picked up on your use of "content notes" as they would be highly useful in our situation. (India is riff with POV issues over religious terms, place names etc. and that method would aid in explaining terms succinctly outside the article body.) I'll look at Che Guvara again to examine that. It is a wonderfully presented article -- the use of blank and white images is very effective. Are you back on Fidel Castro or just sticking a toe in the water? The Haitian Revolution is very interesting plus there are neccesary related articles that are a mess. I've got your user page in my sandbox, making it into mine for when the time comes that it's safe for me to have an identiy. Now my user page is a beautiful (I think) map. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

		The José Martí Barnstar
		For excellent work on Cuban related articles

Esteemed Fellow-editor Zleitzen: On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Landing of the Granma, I would like to award the prized José Martí Barnstar to you for your outstanding contributions in both improving the quality of existing Cuba-related articles and creating new ones that are significantly expanding the scope of Wikiedia's coverage of this important topic. Congratulations on your accomplishments! -- Polaris999 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Polaris! Although I would have to share the prize with the junior Zleitzens who have, particuarily of late, turned this venture into a minor cottage industry by producing banners, finding pictures and helping out in all manner of ways. --Zleitzen 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources

There are a few additional sources on El Coubre and especially on Castro Hemingway interactions in a very detailed piece written by a friend [3]. The surprising thing is that Hemingway may well have been there when La Coubre exploded. El Jigue 12-9-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks very much for your link to Larry Daley's piece on Hemmingway, EJ. One question I would have to ask - if Castro viewed Hemmingway so poorly, why did he keep a picture of them together in his office for so many years? Castro, a man known for harsh denouncements of those he doesn't like, spoke well of Hemmingway throughout his life. Much food for thought.--Zleitzen 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That puzzled me too until it became clear that he was perhaps influenced by the money "Hemingway" brings into Cuba, through licensing fees etc, which is estimated by the Wall Street Journal at perhaps $600 million per year. That picture could also be a trophy of an enemy humbled...perhaps one day we will know. El Jigue 1-2-07

Category:Dying

What's wrong with this category? It's verifiable, and it's highly pertinent to the indidivual's concerned. Rklawton 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (1) we're all dying to varying degrees and (2) in relation to Fidel Castro, where I spotted the new category, though speculation tends to amount to a strong conclusion that he is about to die, there is no confirmation of the severity of his condition. --Zleitzen 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the diagnosis - most of us don't have one. Numerous, verifiable sources have made this diagnosis for Castro. They may or may not be correct, but they are verifiable, and that's the Wikipedia standard. Lastly, your disagreement over this particular application is no justification for nominating this category for deletion. Rklawton 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider to be a verifiable diagnosis? I would consider it to be one by a doctor that has made an examination of the subject.--Zleitzen 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding who gets to make the diagnosis is a matter of POV. Reporting that such a diagnosis has been made is not POV - and it is verifiable. Now, would you please retract your CfD nomination? Rklawton 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who has made the diagnosis?--Zleitzen 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Take your pick. Rklawton 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one from your list

Cuban dissidents have begun to stir amid speculation that Castro may be dying, though some believe he will still return from power after recuperating from the late-July operation.[4]

Which illustrates that there is no confirmation of the severity of his condition.--Zleitzen 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one source. What about all the others? The important point is that there exist verifiable sources that say he's terminal. If you read the discussions behind WP:V you'll see that verifiability is paramount. It's when we start judging for ourselves what is true and what is not true that POV and original research enter into the equation - problems we're all trying to avoid. Rklawton 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have this the wrong way round. It is your category that is judging what is true. Categories should not assert that something which is clearly disputed, as it is in this case, is fact. Show me the verifiable sources that say he's terminal.--Zleitzen 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources cited in articles include: Western officials, Western diplomatic sources, U.S. Officials, foreign experts, the U.S. government, etc. If you are only willing to accept the official word of the Cuban government on this matter, then I must ask if that is the same approach you take with all other information about Cuba? Do you accept only the Communist Party line? Aside from the Cuban government, what sources dispute this diagnosis? Rklawton 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castro's health has been a subject of a propaganda war between the Cuban government and the United States for many years, with numerous reports that he is ill/dead/dying appearing in the press in previous years. Here's an old one that states he has parkinsons disease from the CIA.

The CIA believes Fidel Castro has Parkinson's Disease. The agency says that according to observations of his recent public appearances he does seem to have Parkinson's and his condition has progressed [5]

Though it would seem to be that the present assessments of an imminent demise are likely, it is not our role to contibute to this complex situation. When his team of doctors, himself, or the Cuban government announce his condition, then it is confirmed. Before that, no encyclopedia nor newspaper would announce that he is dying as fact. No encyclopedia nor newspaper has announced that he is dying as fact. Nor should we. Please see WP:ATT and most importantly, please see Wikipedia:Categorization which states;

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option

I see that this categorization for Castro fails the uncontroversial test. You would do well, though, taking official Cuban statements with a grain of salt. Rklawton 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A grain of salt not just the Cuban statements, but also the U.S. statements. Reports from anonymous Western diplomatic sources are not automatically WP:V 'verifiable' where there is a history of U.S. disinformation, as is the case with the United States and Castro. BruceHallman 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for you category in general. I fail to see how a category "dying" will work and have offered it to discussion from other wikipedians. Therefore I will not retract the cfd. --Zleitzen 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When understanding fails, it is customary to discuss matters with other editors. Jumping straight to CfD cuts out this logical and useful step. Rklawton 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category was offered to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for that very purpose. I'm sorry if that does not seem acceptable to you. As for taking official Cuban statements with a grain of salt - thanks for your advice, but having been written endlessly about this very topic both here and elsewhere, I've learnt to take many things with a pinch of salt. --Zleitzen 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Z, if I may jump in, I think you made the right call on both points there. -- Beardo 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brixton Pictures

FAs, Chavez and WP:ELAC

I just discovered why the long article folks showed up on Chavez: considering your recent FA, you'd better check in on this one. FYI, Psycho is 53KB, TS is 71, and British African-Caribbean community is 75KB. Welcome to the extra-long club, aka Nineteen Eighty-Four (we shall be reported to the "committee"). Commentary begins here, and is long. Sandy (Talk) 13:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy.--Zleitzen 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to weigh in over here. I agree that Chavez - at over 70KB prose - is too long, but your/my/Psycho are not 70KB prose, and are not too long. Sandy (Talk) 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the readable prose 38kbs on my page, Sandy. So I hope the commitee stay well clear. It seems silly that we're wasting time on "problems" on some of the best pages, when there are so many other more urgent problems out there. --Zleitzen 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They tagged Psycho (the fim) when the overall size was 53, and readable prose was 38 !! And they're not listening to all of us telling them that 38 readable prose is entirely within reason, but some article are MUCH larger due to images and citations. At least we got them to adjust the horrific template they were adding to article pages - anyway, 38 is not safe - they want TOTAL article size at 32 !?!?!? Yes, it's a massive waste of time, unfortunately. Sandy (Talk) 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hombre sencillo ?

Indeed yes - see http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/CesarRom.htm . It is mentioned in both the Cesar Romero and José Martí articles. As part of the 150th (?) anniversary celebrations, two ladies came to Cuba to visit, who were described as descendants of Marti through his daughter, without questioning - though it seems there is no confirmation that she was his. Oddly http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?secc=5&cont=stories/num11/01.htm describes them as Romero's daughters - but our article indicates that he was a confirmed bachelor. Perhaps they were his nieces ? -- Beardo 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So its true! Well that has to be worthy of a "Did you know". Indeed Romero has always struck me as the "confirmed bachelor" type. There is something about that connection that tickles me. I think its the mental juxtapostion of the noble image of José Martí, with the absurd spectacle of a fully made up Cesar Romero. KERPOW!!!! --Zleitzen 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps Marti thought that he was some sort of superhero - which is why he charged to his death. Marti - the caped crusader ? (Are there any Cuban superheroes ?)

And it would almost be un-Cuban for Marti not to have another child, not with his wife. -- Beardo 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Good thinking Beardo. I think we need to take these claims to the crime-lab for investigation. I don't know of any Cuban super heroes, unless Elpidio Valdés counts? And wasn't James Cason cast as a "joker type" villain in a Cuban cartoon series. I'm serious!--Zleitzen 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Elpidio counts ? His horse maybe. Yes - there have been several cartoons with Cason or Bush (as an eagle) as a sort of super-villain. Interestingly, they are not opposed by an individual superhero, but by the people acting together. -- Beardo 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban cartoons are fascinating, Beardo. Having watched a few Elpidio cartoons, I was struck by the recurring scenes of violence, prison cells, bands of fighters battling against the evil oppressors, and even repeated scenes of torture etc. Even in the most ephemeral aspects of Cuban life, these themes are ever present. --Zleitzen 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was an article on Cesar Romero in Bohemia in the 1950s where the actor' s claim that Jose Marti as an ancestor was accepted as fact. What ever it was generally accepted as fact in the oral traditions of the time. El Jigue 12-17-06

Strange revert in Fidel Castro

My suspicion - someone using a semi-automated routine and not checking properly. -- Beardo 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Jigue Amendment

See Beardo's discussion page (El Jigue Amendment), for detailed proposal. GoodDay 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with GoodDay he keeps following me around griping about me complaining that I "blog" (without defining what blogging is). His latest complaint was on the Chile discussion page [[6]] in which, trying to defuse an ugly and in my view racist argument I wrote: "==DNA studies of ethnic origens==

"Present day Indigenous populations from Northern Chile have been reported to have the usual Indigenous haplotype groups. e.g. haplogroup A, 8.3%; haplogroup B, 62.5%; haplogroup C, 25% and haplogroup D, 4.2% [7]. Indigenous individuals from Santiago show the expected asymmetrical origens (male parent mainly "European"), female parent mainly Indigenous) [8]. This could be interpreted to indicate that the Chilean population following Spanish law and customs is legally mostly "European," since the male progenitors were commonly from Europe, through the years of legal establishment of "Certificados de Pureza de Sangre" and because the Indigenous elite were considered under these laws to be nobility and thus by definition Spanish. There are also complex problems of later European settlement in Chile, where settlements by those of German, Polish, Russian origens (and thus from areas here the successive "Mongolian" invasions occurred) may have some "asian" haplogroups (and therefore be in this respect equivalent to original Indigenous "Americans);" however, this particular topic is left for others to discuss. El Jigue 12-17-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)."[reply]

GoodDay then responded by: ":I'm giving you one more chance 'Little Joe' to stop blogging talk pages. IF you don't, I'm reporting you to the Administrators. GoodDay 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Can you use your good offices to resolve this circumstance. El Jigue 12-17-06

First things first EJ, there seems to be an issue with your new IP address. It looks like it is a shared IP and various anonymous editors are vandalising unrelated pages while you are editing, which is showing up in the midst of your contributions list. Either that or you have suddenly taken an interest in the Scottish Premier League [9] I urge you to register to avoid immediate problems, at least until you resume a stable IP address. --Zleitzen 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen, though it may not seem that way, I too am trying to help EJ. It's so simple, 'Register'. EJ is obviously an intelligent person, why doesn't he understand 'Blogging' & why doesn't he see the benefits of 'Signing In'? GoodDay 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to the subject matter. It is immensly complicated. The subject is mired in an unprecedented level of propaganda, false information, highly partisan varying accounts of every single aspect, where reports by govenments and ostensibly citable media organs radically contradict both each other, and people's own eyes. With this in mind, and with editors in effect largely fumbling in the dark, the boundaries between speculative "blogging" and discussing sources is not so easy to define. Remember that there are people who live in Havana who don't even know if their president is alive or dead. So for us to attempt to uphold an accurate encyclopedia article under these circumstances means that a degree of flexibility is essential.--Zleitzen 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're in favor of Blogging 'talk pages', if it helps promote Cuban democracy? Promoting Cuba democracy is great, but first review Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webpage provider, or social networking site, those are the 'current rules'. Do you back my proposal of changing, those rules? GoodDay 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we concentrate discussion in User talk:GoodDay, though I regard this as a big waste of time by GD, who ought to know better. -- Beardo 23:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you all El Jigue 12-18-06

GoodDay

Hello, Zleitzen. Decided to post here (seperate, form EJ/Bloggin debate). To show I'm a fair man & respect Majority Opinons. If any of you guys, feel I've acted inappropiately during the 'Blogging' debate. If I've come across as, being pushy OR harrassing 'EJ'. Then you guys, have the right to report ME to the Administrators, If Admins. then decide to give me a Block, I won't dispute it (honestly). This Wikipedia is much yours as it's mine; it's ours. GoodDay 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done anything to warrant a warning of any sort. But you seem to misunderstand the role of editors and admins. Things in wikipedia work by mediation and consensus. I think the behaviour of Durova may have given a false picture, by ignoring consensus and issuing blocks, which predictably proved to be unhelpful. There is a dispute process in place which has yet to be followed, I recommend you take a look at that first. Admins are not police nor judges. The whole community is the arbitrator of this issue. --Zleitzen 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Zleitzen, I'll scratch out my posting on Administrator David Gerard's talk page. Furthermore I'll no longer 'complain' about 'Little Joe's postings on talk pages (including Public talk pages). I'll respect the consensus (to leave EJ's postings). I'm going now to 'Apologies' to 'Little Joe'. If you can't get him to registered, then get him off his 'current' IP adress (It might get blocked OR banned). As for the UK Election prediction, I'll have to leave it be. It wouldn't look good if I kept changing it (Thanks for noticing it). GoodDay 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoodDay. --Zleitzen 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: comments

RE: removed my comments that were pasted over here - they have obviously had no impact[10]

Please write this article as you see fit, adding sources. We have different views on how articles should be written, but that should not discourage you.

I think you are a good, honest editor, Zleitzen. I appreciate all of your hard work.

If you know a lot about Operation PBSUCCESS please add this information. I just am not that intersted in the subject right now.

If Fair doesn't do anything with this article after 10 days, I will merge it into Operation PBSUCCESS, which is much better written and sourced. Travb (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have some bits and bobs of sources, I haven't got the desire either Travb. Your schedule for a merger sounds reasonable. I just don't understand where people are coming from with this whole state terrorism business. If these pages followed WP:ATT and just detailed the allegations made from notable sources then there would be no problem at all. In all my time editing here, I've been reverted or had material removed very rarely, and only by acknowledged cranks, to be reinstated at the appropriate time. Yet I have edited and shed light on some very controversial topics. So I hope my words of advise carry some weight. We disagree on methods, but I think we both agree that many editors are way off the mark, and are writing material that just won't stand at all. Have a good Xmas if I don't converse with you before then!--Zleitzen 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War_Feels_Like_War

Thanks for the info. War_Feels_Like_War Travb (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for creating that page. Great work Trav.--Zleitzen 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

I see you're up for the main page soon - you'd better follow the threads on AnI about the main page vandal, for example, this. Sandy (Talk) 02:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy! I just read that earlier Sandy. I think a festive wiki-break may be in order! What is happening, what is the vandal doing to the pages, I can't figure it out.--Zleitzen 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's not doing anything to the actual article, rather vandalizing the templates and images associated with the article. This means *every* template or image associated with the article must be protected in advance - you have to find an admin to do it for you. Talk to tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) in advance, and make sure they're *all* protected. Today's vandalism was utterly disgusting - way beyond the norm - and it was on {{Harvard citation}} - so, it was up for seven minutes on every article that links to that template. Sandy (Talk) 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. Will do. Good work.--Zleitzen 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare for a wild ride: if I'm home, I'll help vandal watch. Sandy (Talk) 02:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]