User talk:Alekboyd

Hello Alekboyd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Sandy 13:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Aleksander Boyd

Hi. If you wish to having the article Aleksander Boyd permanently removed because it concerns yourself, I recommend that you email the Wikimedia Foundation directly, as this is usually the best way to resolve such issues. Thanks – Qxz 14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Venezuela Information Office

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, no personal attacks have been made. Names of individuals cited in article about Venezuela Information Office come from log of activities of said propaganda outlet filed as requested by law, by Venezuela Information Office employees, with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit of the US Department of Justice, therefore it is public and verifiable information, regardless of whether or not some Wikipedians agree with it. Alekboyd (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Hugo Chávez. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. JRSP (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your 'welcome' message JRSP. I noticed that, ignoring those Wikipedia policies you are reminding of, you have summarily reverted all my edits. I suggest you visit any English dictionary, given that that language is not your mother tongue, and revise definitions of libel. It can be broadly defined as the act of defamation by written words. I presume your misunderstanding comes from the adjective I have used to describe Fidel Castro. In this instance I would advice you again to hit the dictionary, and while you are at it the history books, and reminds us when was it that Fidel Castro was elected president of Cuba. As per verifiability, the consensus is that there have not been free and transparent elections in Cuba since Castro ousted the previous dictator in 1959, furthermore the country is not even a democracy, ergo Castro embodies the definition of dictator perfectly. Now you may disagree with it, but historicity and facts are stacked against you, however much you pretend to ignore them. I have also noticed your wholesale violation of Wikipedia principles, principles which you adhere to only when useful for torpedoing other people's edits. The Venezuela Information Office, which you are defending so feverishly, is a propaganda and lobby office completely funded by Hugo Chavez's government. For some reason the entry I created about the Venezuela Information Office was immediately deleted, despite the fact that every remark made in the entry was supported by evidence from the US Department of Justice see here. Furthermore, the fact that the Venezuela Information office receives its funding from the government of Venezuela can be read in its own website, as it is mandatory by law to disclaim source of funding, given that its employees are trying to change US foreign policy regarding Venezuela by lobbying US Congressmen and Senators.Alekboyd (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response

I'm not a Chavez fan by any means; I got threatened with a ban from Wikipedia because I called him a dictator. But your edits do not comply with Wikipedia policy. There is important information about Venezuela missing from the encyclopedia, and you can be an important contributor by fixing the problems in many areas. But you're going to have to play by the rules: assume good faith, do not insert your own original research, use reliable sources, write with neutral language, don't edit war, comment on the edit, not the editor, be civil to other editors. And recognize that when neutral editors arrive to a page to resolve a dispute, they're not going to know anything about Chavez or Venezuela and are going to be inclined to side with the editor who isn't accusing everyone in participating in a conspiracy and trying to insert material that plainly doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. THF (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can point me to the DOJ material that JSRP excised, I can see if he's the one being unreasonable in that regard. THF (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my edits do comply with Wikipedia principles, in fact I am merely trying to have those principles respected and observed by all. Unlike some, I am using reliable sources to back up my statements, I expect those who defend Chavez so vigorously will assume good faith, beyond citing original research (a feature abused by those who quote from Venezuelanalysis and the Venezuela Information Office for instance) all information pertaining to those two sources in particular is supported by either US of Venezuelan official sources, ergo reliable, I do strive to be as factual as possible, and, unlike others, I have been very civil towards other editors thus far. Your last sentence reads like a definition to what others are doing, but in any case thank you for your interest in Venezuela. It is not to be expected that what you call neutral editors will be knowledgeable about the country and its president, what it is expected of them is to respect Wikipedia principles, as quoted above by you.

DOJ material, can be accessed here(Note that it is nothing but scans of original DOJ docs)--Alekboyd (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I'm trying to help you, and you're lashing out and being overly defensive. You're not going to succeed in Wikipedia until you understand why your prior conduct was both incorrect and counterproductive, and I'm certainly not going to stick out my neck to help you if you don't demonstrate that you can be helped.

Those documents are not "DOJ documents"; they're Foreign Agent Registration Act forms, and it's original research to synthesize conclusions from primary documents--especially when the website is your own personal website. THF (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that those documents are Foreign Agent Registration Act forms. As per whether or not those are "DOJ documents":

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act. Public information relating to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) may be obtained in person at the FARA Registration Unit Public Office located at:

Department of Justice

Registration Unit

1400 New York Avenue, N.W.

1st Floor - Public Office

Suite 100

Washington, D.C. 20005

Thanks ever so much for your help.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"DOJ documents" implies documents authored by the DOJ, rather than filed there by others. I found a San Francisco Chronicle article that talked about the lobbying. There's also a very good 2004 National Review article about VIO that you should use to improve the article. I left the link on the talk page. THF (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on [[:Center for Economic and Policy Research]]. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Don't edit war, especially against three separate editors. You're just going to get yourself blocked from editing. Please also review WP:NOR in detail, because your edits do not demonstrate an understanding of this policy, and will end up being reverted. THF (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Thanks. I have already brought up the issue of including unreliable sources in articles about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela [[1]]. Unfortunately no independent party seems to be willing to look into this issue.

I saw that complaint, which was how I found your articles. It wasn't coherent or comprehensible. You need to be more specific (while being concise); vague allegations of bias and unreliable sources are neither going to be persuasive nor result in any assistance. What unreliable sources? Point me to specific footnotes. Or use the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Inline tags within the article, justifying each tag on the talk page of the article with reference to specific Wikipedia policies being violated. But you need to learn to walk before you run: as I mentioned, your own edits do not demonstrate an understanding of WP:RS or WP:NOR, and you will damage your credibility if you make false accusations. WP:NPOV means that articles will include Chavez's lies as well as the truth, and it will be up to intelligent readers to distinguish. THF (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. The sources I am specifically referring to are Venezuelanalisys.com and Venezuezuela Information Office, both of which are used throughout in [[2]] and [[3]] articles. Another user has identified them in Chavez's entry as numbers 26, 199, 115, 133, 157, 174, 204, 207, 208. In any case, it remains factual that that site's impartiality and objectivity is compromised, beyond the relationship that its founder and current editor maintain with the Chavez administration. So all I am asking is that if it is to be used, this relations need to be properly disclosed.

Still not specific enough. There's an extensive discussion going on the talk pages there, and you're not supporting your claims well. On Venezuela, the VIO is cited twice for uncontroversial contentions. For VA and Hugo Chavez, you need to be more specific: RD232's 15:59, 31 January 2009 comment is exactly right. That someone has a relationship with Chavez doesn't mean they're not a RS, it just means that their statements might require balance to comply with NPOV. THF (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That someone has a relationship with Chavez doesn't mean they're not a RS, it just means that their statements might require balance to comply with NPOV.THF (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If these sources are to be used, they need to be clearly identified.Alekboyd (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

However much these people are entitled to their opinions it is a mistake, a violation to Wikipedia principles and dishonest, let alone a disservice to readers, to present them as independent, trustworthy sources when factual evidence shows they are anything but.Alekboyd (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore all remarks/cites/opinions coming from biased sites that receive funding from the Hugo Chavez regime must be clearly identifiedAlekboyd (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see that we are in complete agreement THF. If only other editors could come to their senses...--Alekboyd (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Venezuela Information Office#Bias

Alekboyd, right now I see JRSP's edits as considerably more neutral than your edits, even though I'm quite confident that JSRP and I would disagree on most Venezuela-related questions. If anything, he has been restrained, given your repeated policy violations. I'm not inclined to keep trying to help you when you repeatedly show yourself to be beyond help. And if someone like me who agrees with you is finding working with you frustrating, you're going to get yourself blocked as a POV-pusher very quickly: and administrators have much less patience for policy violations from editors who aren't leftists. I repeat: familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, and then come prepared to edit collaboratively. Because Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if you insist on being a lone warrior, you're going to lose. THF (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us all respect and observe Wikipedia policies. As per editing collaboratively please do provide information that balances the entry. However do not block my attempts to provide information from sources that comply with Wiki policies. The Venezuela Information Office is a lobby and propaganda outlet of the government of Hugo Chavez in Washington. That information comes from its very employees. Why would some people desperately try to cover such crucial information, in violation to those very policies you're referring to, is beyond me.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wash my hands of it. If you don't understand why it's a problem to make claims that are not supported by primary sources, as happened when you undid my edit and reinserted a fictional claim that Shellenberger was a VIO "employee", you're not going to last very long here, and I'm not going to spend political capital trying to help you. I wish you luck, but I'm not optimistic. THF (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks THF. Yesterday the claim was that information was not supported by secondary sources. Fortunately you did provide evidence to that effect. Today the claim is that information is not supported by primary sources, but FARA forms demonstrate otherwise. Michael Shellenberger, according to his own admission, was contracted by the VIO. I will concede that there is a difference between "employee" and "contractor." But the point remains, he's on the record defending Chavez and for that he/the company he founded, got handsomely rewarded. That is factual not fictional. I am appreciative and grateful for your interest in my country, and hope that you will continue providing accurate information about it.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not make your edit WP:BLP-compliant in the next two hours, I will regrettably need to report the problem to WP:BLP/N, and it is unlikely that the administrators there will be anywhere near as patient as I have been. You have the potential to add a lot to Wikipedia, but you need to play by the rules, and you haven't shown any willingness to do that. THF (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you read WP:CIV. Why must I comply to time frames imposed by you? Why do you feel you have the right to threaten me or belittle me? It would be really good indeed if other wikipedians took an interest in these pages, so that common realization of bias could be properly assessed and addressed.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.JRSP (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That applies equally to you.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute last chance

If you revert on Venezuela Information Office without fixing the WP:BLP problem that multiple editors have identified to you, I will be the one who asks for a topic ban, because you will have demonstrated that your strong feelings about Chavez are interfering with your ability to edit constructively. Play by the rules, or don't play. If you don't understand the rules, or why your edit hasn't been compliant, then ask for a mentor to help you instead of being so self-destructive. THF (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But THF, you already reported the problem, didn't you? Whatever happened to that? No one took an interest? As I said earlier, I do not understand what the problem is. So please, since you're so interested in helping out, do explain precisely how can the issue be fixed or I will revert your changes. On another note, do not threaten me, for I have not threatened you. This is not your blog. You have no right to do so and you're violating WP:CIVIL policy.--Alekboyd (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained to you several times. You can not put factually false information about a BLP in an article. You cannot put unsourced information in an article. You cannot misrepresent a cite by adding your original research. You cannot solve the problem by reverting and falsely asserting that it is sourced. If you don't believe us, and you don't understand why we're right about this and you're wrong, please go to the help page, because edit-warring will get you barred from the encyclopedia. THF (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the factually false information. In case you're referring to "employee" instead of "contractor" fell free to change it. Wholesale deleting such information is not an option, for these individuals have received payment for their work. As per "unsourced" information, please point to it. In case you're referring to FARA fillings, said information was provided by individuals cited, and reports from secondary sources identifying them as advocates/spokespeople of Chavez confirms it. While you're at it, please explain whatever happened to your reporting this issue to WP:BLP board.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment shows that you do not understand the policy against synthesis. Please reread it. And I'm asking you to do it right. For your own good, because I'm not going to be around to do your work for you, and other editors who are not sympathetic to the issues you raise are not going to do it for you, and will simply revert. If you do not learn how to use the encyclopedia appropriately, others will ban you. If you really want to improve the encyclopedia and fix the bias, learn the rules so you can do it right. THF (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Now please explain how stating that these people are employees of VIO (as shown in primary source) is negated in secondary sources that *explicitly* present them as advocates/spokespeople of the government of Venezuela.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my obligation to negate; it's the obligation of the editor adding material to support. Nothing in the sources you cite call these people "employees," a word that has a meaning that is not "advocate." THF (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to catch up here; reviewing the article, I'm not sure what the issue is or has been, but listing employees of an organization should not be a problem, if well sourced. Alek, to be a productive editor on Wiki, it is important to review and understand Wiki policies. Please note my many corrections: punctuation goes before footnotes, not after (WP:FN); all sources should have full citation info like publisher, date, author, etc.; WP:PUNC explains logical punctuation, WP:LAYOUT explains the order of appendices, and so on. It is imperative to review WP:V and confine article additions to those that are based on reliable sources. I will watchlist and try to follow from here forward where the area of disagreement is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VIO employees

Could you please comment here about your justification for the inclusion of the VIO employees and contractee? Thank you. Awickert (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on March 9 2009 to Venezuela Information Office

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alekboyd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Gentlemen: please kindly revise the history page and show me how have I violated the three-revert rule. As far I can count I only reverted twice on March 9.

Decline reason:

There's a clear pattern of edit warring here, regardless of the precise timing. Please use the article talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. Agree to stop the problematic editing style, and you'll be unblocked immediately. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alekboyd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

From WP:3RR: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period..." Please observe guidelines. However if these are open to administrative interpretation, as in this case, please kindly look at the page objectively, and realize that there's more than one user engaged in edit warring. If I am to be blocked for that reason, then so should other users involved.

Decline reason:

"In fact I have discussed issues at length in talk pages, to no avail". That doesn't give you a pass to edit-war. Ask for protection in those circumstances. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Alekboyd (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alekboyd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nothing gives me a pass to edit war and I will gladly accept, that much is evident, that I am outnumbered here. The fact that I have been blocked without having violated WP:3RR pretty much says it, doesn't it? Why do others do get a free pass though? Why is it that information perfectly compliant with Wiki policies is constantly removed by editors patrolling the page? For the record we are not talking about multiple editors here, but two: check their contribution pages and tell me how they edits differ from mine.

Decline reason:

There are loads of things wrong here. First of all, you did in fact revert 4 times in 24 hours, so claims that you didn't violate WP:3RR are false. (12:52 8 Mar to 01:33 9 Mar, about 13 hours.) Second, WP:NOTTHEM is never a good enough reason to be unblocked. You are effectively requesting that they be blocked, not that you be unblocked. Third, see WP:BLPN#Venezuela Information Office, which you are aware of, in which the edits you insist on are being brought up as potentially WP:BLP-infringing ones. The discussion has started and you don't have a lot of support there, though I wouldn't say the discussion is concluded. I can tell that you don't have consensus on your side among broader editors, and your power play to have your version be the one on the page while discussion is going on was simply disruptive. As for why the others were not blocked, (1) they only reverted twice each; not close to 3RR, and I can't see it as edit warring, and (2) even if they had, they removed material as potentially violating WP:BLP, which is actually one of the exceptions to WP:3RR in any case. Let me be blunt about this: if you start reverting again when you are unblocked given your current lack of support in this dispute, I believe you will merit an indefinite block for blatant disruption. Discuss in good faith and be willing to compromise, on the other hand, and you'll do just fine. Mango juice^talk 16:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alekboyd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Gentlemen read the title of this section: Regarding reversions[4] made on March 9, 2009 to Venezuela Information Office I did not do 4 reversions in March 9, 2009, so I guess it is clearly demonstrated that I did not violate WP:3RR rule.

Decline reason:

As you have apparently chosen to selectively read WP:3RR, I'll point out a bit that you must have overlooked: The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule. emphasis mine —Travis ^talk 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another clarification is that it's more than 3 times in any 24-hour period, not in a calendar day. You did in fact violate 3RR. Mango juice^talk 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title says 4 reversion in March 9, 2009. I did not make, as a matter of fact, 4 reversion in March 9, 2009, (visit VIO's history page) regardless of how you want to interpret/spin the rule to accommodate the cock up. The tile is clear 4 reversion *in* March 9, 2009. Therefore the reason for blocking is not violation to WP:3RR rule, but rather for edit warring. Very telling that other editors, can indeed edit war happily, yet that doesn't concern supposedly independent administrators.--Alekboyd (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Daniel Case here... but I want to also add that you need to accept when you are outnumbered on specific issues like this Eric Wingerter thing, and stop trying to add them to the article. When you know that multiple other editors oppose such content and no one else supports it you are just disrupting the article by making an edit like that. I actually think blocking you is the right response to this situation rather than protection, because it seems like all the edit warring originates with you. Mango juice^talk 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did ask for protection once [[5]], again to no avail...--Alekboyd (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You requested semi-protection, which was probably a misunderstanding on your part. Semi-protection prevents only new accounts and IPs from editing the page and is meant to prevent a wide-spread pattern of vandalism (such as often occurs when a TV show jokes about vandalism on Wikipedia) or other edits against policy. In edit wars, the only appropriate remedy is full protection, but full protection should not be used except as a last resort, because it is so harmful to editing. In general, full protection should be avoided when blocking can solve the problem. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for more about protection and its uses. Mango juice^talk 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Just a friendly note: You have just come up a block for edit warring. Please be cautious and use the article's talk page to discuss issues to avoid further and longer blocks. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. In fact I have discussed issues at length in talk pages, to no avail.--Alekboyd (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VIO

Pending anyone else explicitly agreeing with you, please await further discussion (at WP:BLP/N or at the talk page) rather than reverting. A number of other editors have been involved and as far as I can see none has explicitly supported your position since the WP:BLP issues were raised. These are basically non-public figures which per BLP creates a presumption of privacy. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Re-introducing plagiarized text[6] after it has been pointed out to you will lead to problems: please take care. The arguments presented on that page to keep out criticism are increasingly absurd, but there are two valid arguments: the text is plagiarized, and you should use secondary sources (of which there are ample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying and the warning.Alekboyd (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chávez

You know perfectly well there is a dispute regarding this topic, and that it's better to consult with editors on the talk page to create a balanced section, describing this controversy through the coverage it has received in reliable third-party sources (both pro and con). Recent edits -- which use incendiary language -- are not going to stick otherwise. Dynablaster (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelanalysis

Hi, thanks for commenting on Venezuelanalysis at WP:RSN. I've actually started a new section to summarise and refocus: WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis Reboot - perhaps you could comment there? (I'm asking everyone who participated in the old WP:TLDR thread.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Venezuela Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, but no thanks. I can not seriously and responsibly commit time to a project that is ever so often derailed by Chavez propagandists. Now we have Spain's High Court accusing Venezuela of supporting ETA and FARC in plots to kill former Colombian presidents and high officials from that country. People may still think that Chavez is some kind of a joke. To me it has been clear for many years, as I have amply document it, that he is threat not only to Venezuela but to regional stability. HIs befriending of terrorist organisations is a very serious issue, and sooner or later, Wikipedia will have to come to terms with the fact that it is being used to idolise and propagandise a man who openly supports terrorism, and under whose watch all gross violations of human rights take place.--Alekboyd (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]