Are you familiar with CAI?Jance 05:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Rico 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you are doing on the Community Associations Institute, but can you please spell out what CID means? If you link this, it has several disambigulation links to it. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 13:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help, I need an opinion from an uninvolved neutral wiki-editor on a subject Hello, if you have a few minutes to help a fellow editor out, I wanted to take a moment of your time to get your opinion on a dispute I'm having with a wikipedia editor. if you visit the page on "Homeowners Association", and look at the discussion, the dissent is about a link I placed on the page to the website "Homeowners Association Websites Central." A certain editor "Wangi" not only believes that I have no right to place the link in the external links section, but further has accused me of starting bogus accounts as new users simply to add this link. I figure if I get some well known wikipedians to look at the situation, the link, and add their opinion to the debate, then at least I will know that the crazy accusations of user fraud will stop. Boy, who would have thought this would be such a hassle. Anyway the url for the link in question is http://www.athomenet.com/homenew/homeowners-association-websites-central.asp , and you can see the long history by looking at the history log on the homeowners association page.... Please, whatever your opinion may be, place it in the discussion area page in the topic of external links of Homeowners association central, and if you think the content is helpful, please add or undo wangi's deletion of the page. I will respect whatever your opinion is. Thank you: 69.15.97.162 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. Sorry, but it looks like linkspam to me. -- Rico 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a noticeboard discussion if you're interested at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard on Carrie Prejean. Caden ^{is cool} 05:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. -- Rico 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Rico, I don't know how you did it, but you are a winner. Is that really the comments of Jimbo Wales on the Carrie Prejean article? That article has been an embarrassement for Wikipedia for a very long time. Congratulations for all of your hard work. I just got disgusted and worked on other things and moved on. I got tired of editors constantly jamming their point of view into the article and of course most of what they wanted to put in the article was wildly negative.--InaMaka (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it. Pay it forward. -- Rico 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		Defender of the wiki -- in the face of the mobocracy dynamic going on at the Carrie Prejean biography article, and multiple civil POV pushers that have tried to harass or intimidate you and InaMaka and game the system -- you both have worked very hard to move the article towards neutrality and try to limit noncompliance of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. For this, I award you this well-earned barnstar! Yeah I know I copied all of the above from the barnstar you gave InaMaka but I felt you deserved to have one too. CADEN is cool 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make my case in the Talk page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In hindsight I probably should have applied the tag after expressing my concerns in the article's discussion page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Zelaya-Micheletti quote ("pinche diputado de segunda categoria") which you removed is background, sure, but I'd hardly call it trivial, except in sense that any specific quote is a detail and thus trivial. Personally, I wish we could get a sourced quote involving the two main players, and one with that much color, for more articles. I'd ask you to consider restoring it, though I won't do so myself. Homunq (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else restored it, and you obviously noticed that. I don't understand your beef with the quote - sure, it's undignified, but it's relevant. IMO it helps understand the tone of the crisis more than a dozen "Congress questioned the mental acuity of..."-style paraphrases. Homunq (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote gives several pieces of information in a graphic sense. Personal animosity between the two; Zelaya's high-handed and abrasive attitude towards congressional authority; the fact that they are part of the same party and Micheletti was initially in a subordinate position; the way parties are considered personal dukedoms; populism. Just recounting those points here took more space than the quote. OTOH, you were right about the Chavez bluster, which is off-topic. Homunq (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to be part of the dispute with the 2009 Honduran coup d'état/constitutional crisis, please take part in mediation discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to take part, but two editors have disagreed, so it's dead in the water. -- Rico 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the spelling of Coup D'etat. The user Dnkrumah who has done extensive editing of the page has deliberately engaged in petty malicious spelling (and editing???)eg Zalaya for Zelaya and reverting them. This article which is controversial in nature needs to be looked at in great detail to untangle the useful edits from the provocative. He has systematically replaced de facto with interim. Any attempts to restore deleted or hevily edited sections he regards as vandalism. I have engaged with him on his talk page which was unsatisfactory. The last thing I want to do is engage in an edit war. He's clever enough to combine a reversion with other edits.Your assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated.Cathar11 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why does s/he make changes and then revert his or herself?[1][2] -- Rico 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read further.

"He's clever enough to combine a reversion with other edits," is a serious no-no. If s/he's doing that, we should take the matter to ANI. This user is inserting commentation calling people disruptive, calling people disruptive in edit summaries, and all the editing just to push an particular POV risks slanting and damaging the article.

This looks damaging, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the rest of the article.

Replacing "de facto" with "interim" is okay -- especially if there is some reason for doing it -- although I've prefer to see whatever term is used in the source cited.

Calling other editors' edits vandalism is explicitly considered incivil by Wikipedia.

His/her sig violates WP:Sig.

The commentation s/he's been adding to the article just seems to be injections of his/her personal opinions, of dubious benefit to anyone else.

I can see by all the whirlwind edits s/he's been making that something's going on.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but I've been editing this article, and discussing it on the talk page, for a long time.

I departed the article because it doesn't seem like people have enough interest in standing up to the Most Interested Persons and insisting that WP:NAME policy and its guidelines be followed. I just blew SqueakBox's argument out of the water -- completely neutralized it -- and the only reactions I got were from biased pro-coup editors that don't disclose their COI's. -- Rico 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your discussions on the talk pages, its many archives and your edits and I have passively followed it. I do read US, UK and Honduran newspapers to keep abreast of the subject. Tnx I will look at it further tomorrow. It's past my bed time.Irish Time . Cathar11 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren begorn. This looks like a good edit. Bob's your uncle.

You're right! It looks like s/he's deliberately introducing misspellings into the article and then correcting them.[3] It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Zelaya's name is spelled Zalaya in many places in the article. -- Rico 03:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing article titles from citations etc, in an undescrined minor edit [4] Cathar11 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S/he wrote you, "I don't mind you re-adding the part about no governments recognizing them," but then keeps deleting it, without moving it somewhere else.[5] How can that be unworthy of inclusion in the article? -- Rico 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a section = which is restored here pointing out OR as it does not appear in the articles cited. He again removes article titles from other peoples citations and claims this is an NPOV version [6] Cathar11 (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No OR should be permitted in the article.

Are these multiple destructions of news article titles in citation simple vandalism? Is it spite? Are you the editor that supplied the citations?

Are you the editor s/he keeps calling "disruptive" in edit summaries and in commentation inserted into the article? -- Rico 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think its vandalism the destruction of news article titles as they are anti coup. They are not my citations. I'm the disruptive editor allthough another ip also edited at some point, I'm certainly not unreasonable or driven but I do want fairness.Cathar11 (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But yet, s/he leaves the hypertext links. Strange.

There seems to be a little problem with the reinsertion of the no foreign gov'ts recognizing the de facto gov't. It's not in the source cited. -- Rico 04:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found No foreign government has recognized Micheletti as president on Reuters so I put that in instead [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathar11 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an editor, "Learn to read and spell," isn't very civil -- and writing the editor, "you ignorant toad," is even worse.[8] -- Rico 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah its a conspiracy. Anyway, Voice of America is a 67 year old organization which even left wing media identifies as trustworthy. Though there is the usual comments over recent years of unbalanced reporting at times. Here are a few links feel free to research. http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/20/world/panel-urges-reagan-to-guard-credibility-of-voice-of-america.html, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=voiceover_america_081505, http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=186 Also, the material is just so you can see who they are. Look forward to working with you and oh yeah can you elaborate on how the Library of Congress is an actor in the removal of Zelaya from office.Da'oud Nkrumah 04:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Living People..Rico I am not sure how to handle this so I will let you take care of it. I came upon a biography for Romeo Vasquez Velasquez and their entire citation is a blog called Narcosphere. Blogs are not credible sources to use and certainly not for living persons. The guy has said even negative nonsense about ex pats living in Honduras and in the end is still a blog and not a compentent news source that is considered reliable for verification. Can you please handle it?Summermoondancer (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just struck through this statement this editor should be barred. How do I make a complaint? (Anything that David Romero has to say about this issue should automatically be disregarded as he is a [...] not on the radio.Summermoondancer (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)) Cathar11 (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You go to AN/I. -- Rico 04:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2009 Honduran coup. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it has been closed. -- Rico 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not every sentence needs a source, but if the source has already been cited, then put that sentence with the sentence where the source is cited instead of set off by itself so that there's no confusion. By being set off as a separate paragraph, its not clear its associated with any source. Thanks. Rsheptak (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (understood) your point, but...

What that does, is dictate that the sentences must be lumped together really closely within the same paragraphs, just to keep other editors from deleting content that has been attributed to a reliable source.

That makes the articles worse, and harder to read, due to the large paragraphs.

People on the World Wide Web are like drunk children. They have a really short attention span.

They lose their concentration really fast if they get bogged down wading through big paragraphs.

Note that the professional writers, of the sources we're citing, use smaller paragraphs.

I've been doing the same thing as them, emulating their style.

There are disruptive rogues all over Wikipedia. They'll delete good content -- whether it's been attributed to a reliable source, or not. They'll opine it's POV, or not neutral, or violated WP:DUE -- or any number of murky explanations that cannot be proven either way.

I recently saw WP:NAME violated, using the argument that an extremely small minority viewpoint existed, and therefore an article took sides (with the world and all the reliable sources I've ever seen). What it really was, was just a bunch of Most Interested Persons pushing an extremely small minority viewpoint, that may not belong on Wikipedia at all, much less something that should be forcing a WP:NAME violation.

Do we really want to try to construct articles to try to foil rogues -- that are everywhere -- and try to lump everything together just to keep them from deleting good content?

The contention that sentences have to be put with sentences where the source is cited, is an opinion, at best.

I'll reply on the article talk page, too, because this is where we should be having this discussion -- so that other editors can participate in this discussion, rather than just us.

Fair warning: I will delete any continued discussion that belongs on the article talk page. -- Rico 23:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis/sandbox. Might want to check out? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You're doing good work, in that it flows -- but it's more your work than mine, so you give me too much credit (not that I don't appreciate it).

For example, I'd have never written, "The ambiguous legality has prompted discussion within and outside of Honduras," because I don't think the legality's ambiguous to any but an extremely small minority (meaning that the viewpoint doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except maybe in some anxiliary article).

Even Micheletti and the military lawyer said that exiling the president was illegal. The UN said it was illegal. The OAS said it was illegal. The RS's call it a coup (and, therefore, illegal). The Law Library of Congress said it was illegal. I don't know whether to tag, "The ambiguous legality" [neutality disputed], [needs citation], or [original research].

Touché! Kudos and plaudits to you for taking on this project, so don't take my criticism too harshly, but I don't think the legality of prompted very much discussion in the USA. Among those that even know there was a coup in a Central American República da Banana, most of the discussion has been about Michael Jackson and health care reform. I've never heard anybody discussing it. -- Rico 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. But at least half that small minority are editing these articles ;-) And it's such a nice sentence to introduce the constitutional aspects... Perhaps I should re-frame it as legality "at the time"? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." -- WP:DUE

From the getgo, the world has been calling this illegal, and has never stopped.

I haven't seen any reliable source refer to the coup's legality as ambiguous.

What I've read in reliable sources, the only ones I read, the discussion and protests have been pro-Zelaya, anti-Zelaya, and anti-Chavez. -- Rico 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that bones often need to be thrown for negotiating down stream. Yes, it's undue weight. But the part of the policy that says "not its prevalence among editors" I do not take to mean as an absolute rejection of other editors' views when it's likely that their ham-handedness further down the road is likely to impede an article's development, and eventually skew the weight their way anyhow. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Other editors' views, concerning whether the legality was ambiguous, are irrelevant. While I understand your pragmatism, the coup deniers/apologists got themselves a huge bone by getting the word "coup" taken out of the title, in violation of Wikipedia's NAME policy and events guideline.

If "it's undue weight" then the viewpoint must be attributed to its adherents, not stated as a fact. Now it is.

Other editors might profess to hold a point of view that they really don't, to push a POV due to a COI. Did you know that SqueakBox, a who runs a business in Honduras, has admitted more than once, that his viewpoint is that this was a coup? -- Rico 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article I'm drafting is to be named 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, as per a discussion between me and Homunq. This is not to work on the lede of the current article, although a bunch of stuff will be taken out of there. This is a fork, though not a POV one (although that's what the argument will be). My main point in doing this is because -- from what I'm reading -- there is a constitutional crisis, albeit in a very abstract and distant sense, as the current article is weighted by the coup. What I'm reading into this is a whole bunch of folks who do want a new constitution, and that not enough coverage is given to that. Or doesn't appear to be, because of coup coup coup in the current article. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I don't quite understand the POV/COI argument given[reply]

SqueakBox (who has a block log a mile long) will go berserk, and break every rule that stands in his way to try to stop you.

Be ready for sockpuppetry, too.

Have you seen this? -- Rico 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed some of the skew. We need another Move request. One admin moved it, one admin can move it back, and our rebuttal to the coup deniers/apologists is stronger now. -- Rico 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, very few people even responded to the proposal of 'the compromise'. I was one of them. I said it wouldn't work. -- Rico 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the arrest may have been legitimate, the military's expulsion of Zelaya was a 'direct violation' of the constitution, according to an analysis by the U.S. Congress's legal research arm." -- Washington Post -- Rico 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't mess with what you're working on without permission. Do you want comments on the Sandbox version of the article? If not, then feel free to ignore these:

(1) second sentence... "The Congress voted in Roberto Micheletti"-> "The Congress voted to appoint Roberto Micheletti"

(2) section Background..."The Supreme Court of Honduras later found Zelaya in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order, and ordered that he be suspended on June 30 if he fail to comply." neither clause is true. The Supreme Court (decision is on their website if you want to read it http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/ download Expediente Judicial Relación Documentada Caso Zelaya Rosales, which is actually a PowerPoint of images of the documents) only upheld the lower Contentious Administrative court finding and order. I think you'll find it does not find him in contempt, or threatens him with removal if he fails to comply. That would not have been proper procedure under Honduran law. The Supreme Court was actually following the procedures outlined in the legal code for prosecuting high government officials of crimes when it appointed Tomas Arita, but he screwed it up by ordering the military to carry out the warrant.

Relying on primarily english language sources will be difficult, and lead to errors of fact, but its your rewrite.

Otherwise a good job at simplifying and boiling down to the essentials while remaining factual. Rsheptak (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need permission to edit Wikipedia and you can make your own edits. I made the first one for you, but I haven't looked past the lede. I didn't write, "The Supreme Court of Honduras later found Zelaya in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order, and ordered that he be suspended on June 30 if he fail to comply."

Be a little more circumspect, please.

And it's not my rewrite. It was a result of a discussion between other editors, I didn't start it, and I am not the primary contributor to it.

And if you're going to write me on my talk page, and you don't want to see your posts summarily deleted without response, then you'd better be a little more civil than accusing me of editing something without permission that you and I both have every right to edit. -- Rico 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Deep Breath>, read what I wrote again. I didn't say you edited something without permission, I said that I wouldn't edit the sandbox without the permission of the people working on it. I approved of what's been done. It was a compliment, not a criticism. Since you and the other guy whose username I cannot remember at the moment discussed it, I assumed you were working on it, and that I WOULD NOT ASSUME THAT MY CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE WELCOME. That is not an attack, its extremely polite and respectful of ownership and authorship; hence, comments on your talk page. Its your talk page and you can do what you want with what I wrote, but don't accuse me of incivility. Rsheptak (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. <blushing> I misunderstood, "I won't mess with what you're working on without permission."

It's not my deal, and I think you should feel welcome to edit it if you want. I did. -- Rico 22:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... a good example of the dangers of the misplaced modifier. I'm glad you guys worked it out :). Homunq (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend, good afternoon. I will copy and paste your message to me and it will be followed by my answer, if you don´t mind:

Lecen, please either show us where Opinoso's "dishonesty is already proven".

If you have the patience to, just read the whole discussion and you will understad. If not, I will tell you I now:

To prove his point, Opinoso has added information to the former subsection "Emperor Pedro II reign" followed by "sources". I told everyone that it did not make any sense what he wrote as no historian said that. To prove my point, I put the work of British, American and Brazilian historians about Pedro II reign.

Then, I checked each source on evey passage Opinoso wrote and I found out that he simply invented (created, lied, or whatever you want to call it) information that the source did not say. A couple of examples: he wrote that it was during Pedro II reign that most slaves were imported to Brazil. His source does not says that, all it gives are how many slaves there were in Brazil from 1867 to 1887. Another example was that he said that in all rebellions that occured in the regency the rebells were fighting against a unequal social order imposed by the monarchy. I found out an online copy of the book he used as source and showed to everybody that the author only mentioned one rebellion (the Cabanagem) and that in it whites were killing blacks that were killing pardos and vice-versa and every group wanted to become the dominant group in the region. That´s all. Opinoso was not faithfull to his own sources and has repeately ignored Wikipedia rules (such as reverting other editor's works while the matter was still on discussion).

What he did was very, very serious. Could you imagine if this article was about a living person? And if Opinoso had wrote something that was not true and claimed that he got the information from a source that did not say that? What if the living person took legal action against wikipedia based on that? What if the source be blamed for something it did not tell and that was invented by an editor? I cannot discuss the matter with a person that is dishonest (which Opinoso is, and I am not insane of calling another editor that if I had not sure of it) and does not know anything about History. - --Lecen (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olá, meu amigo. Então é brasileiro como eu! Irei escrever em português, se não se importar. Tudo que você falou eu já tentei. Antes de começar minhas modificações no texto eu avisei a todos na página de discussão. Esperei dias por uma resposta e nada. Comecei a realizar as modificações, sempre avisando na página de disucssão de cada uma delas e pedindo a opinião ou crítica dos demais editores. Nenhum se manifestou e vários inclusive corrigiram alguns erros gramaticais que cometi no texto (ou seja, não reclamaram das modificações e ainda colaboraram no esforço). Então Opinoso apareceu. Eu enviei uma mensagem particular para ele (basta olhar na página dele) pedindo para entrarmos um consenso em paz. O que ele fez? Simplesmente me ignorou e continuou me atacando e agredindo na página de discussão do artigo sobre o Brasil. Eu disponibilizei vários e vários trabalhos de historiadores brasileiros para todos verem que eu não estava inventando nada, tudo tinha uma fonte confiável (eu sempre coloquei o nome do autor e página). Aí o Opinoso começou a escrever no texto. Como te falei antes, achei estranho pois não tinha sentindo algum, e comprovei colocando infromações de historiadores. E mais: mostrei que as fontes dele não diziam nada do que ele havia escrito. Isso revela o quão canalha esse sujeito é. Além de mal-caráter, ele não sabe nada de história. Para tudo ele usa páginas de internet ou um único livro de sociologia escrito por um tal de Darcy Ribeiro (e ainda escreve coisas que o Darcy Ribeiro não escreveu!). Ele chegou ao ponto de usar como base para comprovar o ponto de vista dele a opinião da avó!!!! Eu já olhei na página de discussão dele, esse cara é um encrenqueiro que sempre se mete em confusões. Você tem três opções pela frente: ficar em cima do muro (sempre o mais conveniente e inútil), apoiá-lo (o que seria um absurdo) e ou mandá-lo se calar e parar de pertubar o trabalho sério de outros (o mais sensato e correto a se fazer). - --Lecen (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rico, você está cometendo um erro. Você colocou no alerta que eu não estou tentando resolver o problema, o que não é verdade. Vejo que você não leu a discussão completa. Em vários momentos o usuário User:Debresser pediu para colocarmos as opiniões de como deveria ficar o texto final. Eu o fiz, mas Opinoso continuou com os ataques. Se duvida, veja a página de discussão do Debresser. Quanto ao Grenzer22, só pode ser um fake. Deve ser bloqueado antes que piore o problema. - --Lecen (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Como você me pediu, eu retirei o trecho em que chamei o Opinoso de desonesto. Estou agora escrevendo as razões de cada modificação que realizei. Dê uma olhada, e você entenderá tudo. Veja o texto antigo e o novo na comparação. Estarei a espera de sua opinião depois que terminar. - --Lecen (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rico, we are trying to settle the matter in the article about Brazil once and for all through consensus. Take a look at the 10 points settlement. I do really recommend you to read carefully the other editor's opinions also. This 10 points method is more simples and faster than having to read the discussion page discussion all over it again. I must also warn you (to be careful) that some of the passages in dispute have already been proved that they have no basis on its own sources (that is, they were fabricated). Thank you, - --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "-OR" edit is appropriate, but can you try to find some way that you approve of to include the context you removed (specifically, the links)? I don't want to seem to just revert you, but the article lead definitely needs some link to the (eminently notable) context. Thanks. Homunq (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you did the same on the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article too. The same comment applies. Thanks. Homunq (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 2009 Honduran coup d'état. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Honduran coup d'état. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the AFD, you can read it there. My feelings aren't really hurt, but c'mon man, give me some credit. Homunq (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rico,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for marking up the diff on WT:BLP. Looks neat. Gigs (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin has also deleted or moved what I have written on some talk pages. Maurreen (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]