--Sallicio 16:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Why not?.. I really don't have an answer, I just like the userbox. Thanks for catching my misspelling at Guacimal, or mejor dicho Guasimal. Best Wishes for 2009.--Jmundo (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC) pd: I enjoyed the "bajense de la tribuna" comment at talk:Puerto Rico.[reply]

Is a real honor, but I don't think I have the stamina to go with the process right now, maybe in the future. Gracias, --Jmundo (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism - I'd like to invite you to add the Terrorism deletion watchlist to your watched articles, as it will allow you to be updated whenever a related article is proposed for deletion. In total, 40% of articles sent/added to Wikiproject Terrorism have requests for cleanup outstanding, whether better sourcing, orphaned or in need of images...please feel free to see the entire list. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make it clear that I bear no animosity towards you with regards to our discussion in the Afd for Diazepunk. Some things about your posts led me to feel that you were accusing me of something, mostly the use of certain colloquialisms, so I may have been defensive. I admire the fact that you are strongly defending an article you believe is notable, and I hope you understand that my defense of my position is based on the fact that I don't see the notability in the sources. I don't want to simply take people's word for it, I think Wikipedia deserves a good argument over the merits of this article, because while the band is reputed to be notable, there isn't a lot of proof of it, at least in my opinion. I hope we can work together, or at least butt heads, in the future. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, wasn't that fun! ;) Actually, my hardheadedness is good for the article in question, at least in my mind, because now there is a record of why the article should be included as notable. I was hoping somebody would give me a reason to keep it, and you came through. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word "thanks" hardwired into your signature? I've seen some comments of yours on AFD, where adding that word makes your comment look either weird or sarcastic. You might want to consider doing something about it to avoid any misunderstandings. A cheerful thanks would also be quite misplaced when you're giving out a warning to a vandal - Mgm|^(talk) 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Mgm on this one. It comes off sarcastic even when the context of the post is not. This is the great disfortune of the internet, and written language in general, the emotional cues we get from spoken language just aren't present. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I saw a post of yours on ANI and it seemed quite sardonic. -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to seek a "happy medium" if he continues reverting. By the way, are you into Puerto Rican currency? I'm planning a project and will need some backup, but Tony is helping me with a lot of articles already and Marcos & Eddie are MIA. Thus, I have been juggling you and Jmundo in my mind, what do you say? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that the final product will be more history than economics... The first step of what's in my mind will be merging Puerto Rican peso and Puerto Rican dollar into one, creating a new article titled Currencies of Puerto Rico. I have a book that was published by Western Bank, which covers virtually all the banknotes issued throughout our history. That should feed a lot of bytes into the article. Puerto Rican peso has a nice section covering "Subsequent currency issues in Puerto Rico", providing a nice modern perspective, which should be useful for the final product. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR; I don't think that an AFD is really nessesary, the articles are within our scope and completely abandoned by WP:NUMIS. The last member of said project to edit either page was Dove1950, all the way back in 2007. My guess is that they wouldn't oppose a merger either, mostly because if the article is promoted they get a GA as well. But, chances are that they will not even notice it until it is at WP:GAN. - Caribbean~H.Q.

Excelente :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, I'm under the impression that we should replace the common U.S. dollar infobox with something like the one used above (in peso). These dollars were more like "Americanized" pesos, their circulation was exclusive to Puerto Rico, featuring a bilingual design only printed here. Thus, its kind of inaccurate (misleading?) including the United States as official users if they were more of a regional token. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You raise a good point, perhaps we should focus on provincial currency. I mean the United States dollar article covers its history. We really don't need a huge infobox in two articles, a link in the lead and another in the prose should guide the reader properly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Best of luck with that, you will need it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading, we have more currency types than just the peso and dollar. The Spanish crown issued licenses to several entities, including a railroad company. Its interesting to note, two historians mentioned in it claim that Puerto Rico was the first place in America to print paper money, twenty years before Cuba, the Dominican Republic and even Spain (yeah, that is Europe). - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. So far so good. I have just one question for you. Are you some type of admin or something? I am just curious what exactly your role within wikipedia is. Thanks! Virgo1989 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some more information so people can accurately consider the notability of the label? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted above that you blithely shrugged aside a comment with your explanation that it was meant "in a light-hearted way!". Is there any reason why on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADecember_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes&diff=260605386&oldid=260604983 and your preceding edit that you automatically presume the worst in other people's words and hype the emotional situation for no benefit whatsoever rather than asking first if you believe there has been a grievous offence carried out against Wikipedia (and if so, state which rule). Shouting "NO U" in an edit log is hardly "neutral tone", either...
Apply the Golden Rule, please. Regards & Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you're responsible for censoring the proposal to discuss the events of the 27th december 08 as a Genocide against the Palestinian People.

let me tell you something , you're action to freeze the discussion is despicable and downright arrogant.

Why? because you acted without any consensus or community agreement. In other words you're declaring that you're All-knowing , which from your self-righteous outpost gives you supreme authority to decide what is fringe and what's not.

How dare you even put a quality label on something you don't even understand?

I demand that you momentarily revoke your intervention , and let the free world decide what's Right or Wrong.

This is a very sensitive matter of historical importance , so you better not be biased!

I'm afraid i've to talk to Jimmy Wales if you don't stop your action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello to Jimmy when you talk with him. Tell him the flowers were lovely, but I rather have some of the speaking fees :D.--Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think those acts are like genocide, you can not say so on Wikipedia unless a high number of Resources refer to it as so. Wikipedia is not my or your thoughts diary :-). Have fun. Darwish07 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, per your suggestion, I've raised the issues we're having over the Dec 2008 Gaza Strip incident article over here. Lot 49a^talk 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to address your comment that I'm not presenting my views on the talk page. I think that I was pretty clear on the article talk page that I think that the article should be named after the operation at least as an interim measure while we sort out consensus. I can easily see that you might have missed my comment given how much text there is in the arguments. [is the diff.] Lot 49a^talk 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page to keep the thread all in one place! Lot 49a^talk 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi Cerejota, i guess i should have re-read WP:SNOW. We may disagree about the main reasons why the proposed title has no chance of being the consensus result, but it's true that it's getting rather sidetracked into an interesting issue which nevertheless risks distracting from the issue of the article itself.

i agree with your point that if Israel was trying to "physically-biologically" destroy the Palestinians, then it would be showing dramatic incompetence incredibly inconsistent with Israel's known technological/military power. On the other hand, there is a legal debate on how wide to define genocide. To quote from the wikipedia entry genocide, "But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnical group was enough to qualify as genocide." i think it's on this basis that several notable people, such as Boyle and Pappe, argue that the plan is to make life so miserable for Palestinians that they prefer to move to Jordan or other countries in the region, not just to defend Israel against military attacks by Palestinians. My guess is that the point of the wider definition is that any plan and/or action to massively remove a given population from where it lives should qualify as a Very Bad Thing that needs a legal name and legal instruments/institutions to help get something done against it. Whether or not the legal use of the word genocide as well as popular use will evolve to match the narrower or wider definition is crystal-balling, so i won't try. However, as long as there is a sizable minority of legal/human rights experts who want to use the wider interpretation, we will have to accept that the word will continue to be used by some people for a quite wide range of Very Bad Things done by various governments and opposition forces around the world, not all of which are "physical-biological" destruction (mass murder). Boud (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do it?

Do you actually thing it helps us move forward to continue adding to the ziggurat, or to have a more orderly discussion in a format that is standard? I mean, what purpose does it serve? I am trying to make sense of it. --Cerejota (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We were having a discussion. It wasn't finished. You closed it and told people not to comment on it. You then started a new one, with none of the information and comments from the previous one. In summary: That last move request wasn't in straw poll format, so let's start over. As I said in the edit summary: uh... no. Four people, including one person who disagrees with the "Operation" name, have stated that the reboot was unnecessary, that a discussion was already ongoing. Apparently, that's still not good enough for you. You're clearly trying to maneuver your choice in, what with the "silence implies consent" and "24hr deadline" nonsense. I'm not playing your games; I have said all I need to say to make my point. -- tariqabjotu 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Wikifan's objection to bot archiving, your current attitude is not very productive. I have given no indication in my editing and argument of operation in no other fashion than with transparency and usefulness. In fact, at times I felt we where moving ahead together in even different directions than from where we both started. But then I see those hopes slashed.

I know it might be hard, but would you believe me if I told you that I am not trying to hide anything? I have no problem with discussion or debate. In fact, I have answered all points raised etc. I am not trying to hide a discussion, but highlight the fact that we need to make a decision. Perhaps I have been cumbersome and too bold, but being treated the way that Wikifan has treated me and that now you seem to join is really not good and conducive to any understanding or article quality. We are not enemies and shouldn't be enemies nor is this the end of the world.

I am not playing a game and your accusation is hurtful and unproductive - I am trying to be clear and to follow what policies require me to do, to seek to understand the other side. Again, that we disagree doesn't mean that we cannot work work together, or that we can convince each other. The issue of my reversion of a move by another user is already in Dispute Resolution, to keep bringing it up even in unrelated discussions, or to go on strike from other productive things that have to happen in the article is an attitude I do not understand - it strikes me as disrespectful of the dispute resolution process, and of the need to edit.

I can't say that I don't listen. Man, I have gone as far as not writing my usual "Thanks!" when addressing you as a sign of respect because you mentioned you took it the wrong way. (and I write that even when it doesn't make much sense, its a tick) Why you remain this way towards me? Why do you fail to assume good faith? --Cerejota (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm one of the people who disagrees with "Operation" and it was not me who said that the reboot was not necessary. i didn't speak up at that point because i didn't see any sign that we were getting ready for a structured discussion. i think that Cerejota's present approach is a good one. Boud (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your efforts on the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes article. You're bold, neutral, and used to getting things done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwish07 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not in much of a position to mediate, I'll be travelling for a few days. Good luck! Lot 49a^talk 17:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your help on the article page will be appreciated. There are two people reverting changes, and two arguing for strict guidelines, and only me actually adding references to the list. It is a stalemate. Your help is needed to enforce strict inclusion criteria, and casting a vote for a better title would help. The most popular so far with two votes is: "Nazi ideologues". I trimmed off all the people who were just Nazi party members, and the ones who wrote about Mussolini. I deleted all the artists and philosophers supressed by teh Nazis, since they dodn't contribute to their ideology, but that section keeps getting readded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this request for userfication I have moved the article Excel Corruption to User:Cerejota/Excel Corruption. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]