User:Joaquin Murietta/archive1 Archive 1

Old junk will be moved to User:Joaquin Murietta/personal sandbox
George rallies the troops
ni modo file here

Suspect sources for the "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees"[edit]

Last week you described as "suspect" the sourcing of the information for the detainees in the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. I welcomed you to spell out what you found suspicious. You said you were too busy last Wednesday to state your specific concerns.

Well, since I've spent a lot of time trying to make sure the sourcing was clear, I'd really like to know what contribution you have to make. So, how about the 25 word summary version? -- Geo Swan 16:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you have put into this article and I would like to give it the attention it deserves. I will try to take an hour this weekend to focus on my concerns, and if they are resolved I will post a comment to that effect. if they are not, I will post my concerns. Joaquin Murietta 19:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look forward to it. -- Geo Swan 06:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

- One concern is that you link to the Washington Post as a source, but the link takes us to the front page or home page for the paper. I'd like to see an online or print source for each name that goes beyond blanket cites to a newspaper homepage Joaquin Murietta 06:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You meant here? -- Geo Swan 07:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

- - You obviously care much for this subject and have worked very hard. But, now that the sourcing is clarified, much of the article seems to be lifted from the Washington Post. It would be better to have a short article that refers to the Wash Post web site, instead of copying their list. Please see my copy vio listing under [1] Regards. Joaquin Murietta 14:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation?[edit]

You have trusted that I put the information to the wikipedia in good faith.

And I am trusting that you put the copyright violation up in good faith.

So, where is the appropriate place for this to be discussed? Your understanding of copyright differs from mine. I am going to take this to the Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees for now, unless you can suggest a better venue. -- Geo Swan 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin, this is, at best, a misguided copy-vio notification. The article states at the outset that "This list of Guantanamo Bay detainees is compiled from various sources". Notwithstanding that statement, the referencing of the items on the list to the Washington Post (amongst other sources) does not constitute any copyright violation IMO, but is just the result of necessary hard work put in by Geo Swan to verify the article. The list in the article also contained names not on the Washington Post list, and you have no business deleting the entire list on that ground alone.

You stated on the article talk page, and on your own talk page, that you had concerns with the sources and you would return to address them when you had time. Most recently (10 October) you said you would do this at the weekend, which doesn't start until 15 October. Well, today you put up a copy-vio notice and deleted the entire list. A less generous interpretation than mine might construe this as vandalism. The correct course of action would surely be to have voiced your concerns about possible copy-vio problems on the talk page as you suggested you would do. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin, this is my first experience with a page that has been tagged with a copyright violation. I am going to assume it is your first experience with this tag as well. If I understand the procedure outlined on the policy pages, normally the contributor who is concerned about a possible copyright violation raises the issue on the talk page, first.

When you said you were concerned about sourcing I thought you were echoing Proto's concerns that the source of the entries was insufficiently referenced. Consequently I continued the work of adding a link to each detainee's entry who did not have an article of their own. If the wikipedia consensus concurs with your concern, that this is a copyright violation, that work will turn out to have been a waste of time. It will turn out to have been an avoidable- waste of time.

So, let me urge you, if you ever consider adding a copyright violation tag to another article, would you do so differently? If you ever consider adding another copyright violation tag would you consider raising your concern on the talk page earlier than you did in this case, to avoid wasting other wikipedian's time? Would you consider discussing the issue on the talk page before you add the tag? -- Geo Swan 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on talk pages[edit]

Hi, I noticed that in your edits on talk pages, most of the comments that you made have been in a sub header saying Response by User Joaquin Murietta. This isn't standard Wikipedia practice and I find that this makes the discussions hard to follow and tends to give them an argumentative feel. I'd really appreciate it if you just used indentation instead. Thanks, Apyule 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you will do. Joaquin Murietta 04:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we talk?[edit]

Listen, I am committed to being here on the wikipedia for the long haul. And it looks like you are too. I'd like to suggest we try to assume good faith on the part of one another.

I know you know I thought you made a mistake, well, several mistakes, in initiating the copyright violation procedure on LoGBd, and in the careless way you initiated it, without checking some of your assumptions.

But I don't want to dwell on that. I was still angry yesterday afternoon, and last night. I was still mad when I cast my vote in the Jeffrey Waruch {AfD}. But I slept on it. I realized I had made lots of mistakes in my life.

And I remembered something else. I have a strong belief in democracy. I have a strong belief in the value of reaching out, and building bridges, to those who hold views that differ from mine.

Wikipedia is not a blog. But I do visit blog sites, and participate in political discussions there. I found some people were going to the site I liked to find like-minded people. And some went to find those at the opposite end of the political spectrum, so they could mock them, and try to trick them into embarrassing admissions. Relatively few people went there for the reason I did.

The value of talking to those we disagree with...[edit]

When I entered into discussions there one my chief motives was to challenge my own views.

That first group of people, who sought out the like minded, got their opinions reinforced. And I saw them getting their opinions reinforced, even when that kept them from wising up when the cruel world, and cruel events, could have taught them that their views, were mistaken.

That second group of people, who sought out the other side, but to mock them, and trick them, were also just re-inforcing their views. And they two were at risk of reinforcing their views, and not wising up when events were making their positions untenable.

When I enter a discussion I welcome finding a correspondent who will challenge me, and make me think.

On that blog site I mentioned I have found some correspondents, on the other side of the political spectrum, who played fair, just as I play fair. They might get het up, but they kept the discussion to the issues, and if they asked me a question they thought I wouldn't be able to give a good answer to, they would listen to my answer. And they would be fair, if I gave a good answer, I could count on them to honestly acknowledge that.

I try my best to to do the same. I won't show false modesty. I think I do a pretty good job.

I never use an argument I know is flawed. I never use figures, stats, facts, that I know are questionable, or if I do, I do so with a proviso, letting my corrspondent know it is questioned, and letting them know why.

If I learn an argument I used was false, or a fact or figure I used had been overturned, or debunked, I try to own up, and say so.

If my correspondent makes a good point, I tell them so. If they convince me of some portion of their position, or the convince me in whole, I own up and say so. And I admire those who can do likewise.

And, if I do something that doesn't meet my standards, if I think I owe someone an apology, I own up and say so.

I have an apology for you[edit]

I believe in playing fair with my correspondents. I believe in apologizing. And I have an apology for you.

I wrote something that, when I checked my record of contributions, turned out to be incorrect. I had a false memory. I wrote that by having a concern about the LoGBd article that was serious enough that it might get the article deleted, but not sharing it, keeping it to yourself, you had risked allowing me to put a lot of effort into what might turn out to be a waste of time.

During the AfD on LoGBd I worked flat out on improving it, as the history shows. I was doing a lot of other work, secondary research, that doesn't show up in the record, reading article I found through google news alert, so I could document further document the detainees. I tracked down about a dozen new detainees, who are not listed in either the Washington Post's list or the cageprisoner's list.

My memory was that I kept working flat out on the article after the AfD closed. My memory was that I might have put as much as a dozen hours working on it during the 6 days between when you hinted at having concerns, and when you initiated the copyright violation procedure. But it wasn't true. My contribution record shows my memory was false. So, any outrage I expressed was misplaced.

I owe you an apology for that. And I am prepared to put a note on Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees saying so. If you want a note, I will let you see the wording first.

Edit wars suck[edit]

I saw you have been editing some of the pages I have written.

I said I can appreciate a tactful challenge to my positions.

I made a few changes to the article on Agha, That attracted your attention. Well, the thing is, I had been working on a big revision of that article, when a friend of mine called me up, and wanted me to go with them and run some errands. I considerably expanded on the paragraph where I talked about how much fun the three boys had in Camp Iguana. It is undeniable. Even though they were 12, 13 years old when they arrived, they were completely illiterate. They learned to read and write their. It is kind of heartbreaking that 30 years of warfare in Afghanistan had destroyed the infrastructure there so much that they were illiterate. The father of one of these kids thought that the year of schooling he had at Camp Iguana left him as an educated man. It is heartbreaking that Afghanistan is so ruined that a year of schooling makes a kid among the few educated men in their village. There is no way that is America's fault.

The kid's parents not getting a letter, telling them the kid was still alive. You thought the original wording of his article was an implied criticism of the USA, right? Well, what I found today is that he dictated at least one letter to his parents to a representative of the Red Cross. That letter didn't get through. So I changed that portion of the article, and I think my expanded version makes clear that the heartbreaking anguish his parents must have felt when their son disappeared without a trace is not the fault of the USA. My gues would be that it was due to the remoteness of his village, and the breakdoown of the infrastructure.

Like I said, I think edit wars suck. My offer to you is that I will put the expanded version in a file my user space, and give you a sneak preview. You can comment on it without us having an audience. A discussion is differnt when there is no audience.

I know the bible says "turn the other cheek". In the interests of full disclosure I am not reaching out to you because I am a christian. I am not a religious person, FWIW.

How collaboration should work - my first experience with the NPOV tag[edit]

Last night, before I fell asleep, I re-read the history of the article and the discussion page for that article. I try my best to avoid inflammatory wording in articles. I thought I had done an okay job in that article. In any case I had given it my best effort. But someone put an NPOV tag on it anyhow. Well, he turned out to be a good guy. I asked him questions. He told me what his concerns were. Answering his questions, made me work hard. Paying sincere attention to his concerns drew some compromises out of me. We got to a point where we were both satisfied. Even though I had been satisfied with the article before the NPOV, I felt a lot better about it after.

After I woke this morning I was going to invite you to read the article I had been so pleased with. But then I realized that various events had happened since my discussion, and I had made edits. I had put my best effort into avoiding the things I know can trigger Americans feeling a document is attacking America. My plan to present it as an example of how an article can be written that satisfies people of differing views wouldn't work if I had unknowingly let some of those triggers leak in since then.

You might find it hard to believe, but I really do believe in reaching out. I'll remind you I made multiple attempts to contact you, and learn your concerns, even after the AfD went against your side.

So I started working on some more updates to the Camp Iguana article. I will put it up a preview version of my update in my user space.if you like.

In my discussion with that other fellow I explained my view on the compromise between not triggering the feeling that an article was POV, and honouring the truth. I offered him an analogy, by asking him to consider how the wikipedia would handle talking about slavery, if there were countries where slavery remained legal. I think if slavery was still legal in some parts of the world today it would be a very contentious issue. I think the spin doctors of the slave owning countries would invent euphemisms for slaves, that they might call them something like "beneficiaries of guaranteed lifetime job security", and the more extreme abolitionists, the radical John Brown types, would try to make everyone call slave owners something like "flesh-ripping whip wielders".

Anyhow, I hope you will read the discussion the other fellow and I have in Talk:Camp Iguana.

Inviting your opinion on copyright issue[edit]

I take copyright seriously. Today my google news alerts advised me of two new Afghanis. These two are expatriates, who lived in Pakistan. They were both journalists. One was a poet. His story is remarkable. It moved me. I am planning to start an article about him. Some of the brief poems, or brief excepts of his poems, published in the following articles, moved me. Poetry doesn't usually move me. But these did. Even though these newspapers published them I think the copyright belongs to him. I am considering including some selections in the article. Let me invite you to offer your opinion on how much of the poetry in the newspaper articles could be included in his wikipedia article without triggering a copyright concern.

-- Geo Swan 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted, but nothing further is necessary or needed.

With respect to the copyright issues, I'll wait for the admins to decide.

Again, I would suggest that you look at the William Kunstler and Chicago Seven articles for some ideas on how to handle a controversial subject in a NPOV, encyclopedic fashion.

Regards Joaquin Murietta 01:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I have a request of you. I have told you I take all serious questions seriously. And now you believe me. That history of the talk page that documents the exchange Lekoman and I had showed I was prepared to make a big effort. But it takes time.

I think I can document that Carolyn Wood drafted the extended interrogation techniques. I am going to make a big effort to try. I'll make a serious effort to address serious concerns you have on any contribution I make. You are going to let me pace myself, right? Can you hold off on nominating articles for deletion, over contributions I made to them, that you consider POV, or whatever? If you give me a fair chance to make my best, good faith effort to satisfy your concern, and your best, good faith, opinion is that the article still deserves deletion, why, of course you should go ahead. With my blessing. -- Geo Swan 02:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Joaquin Murietta 03:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

cooperation[edit]

Well Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category says that if you think the "article is biased or has lots of POV" you should List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

The reason you gave for nominating the Carolyn Wood article for deletion was POV, but the tag you put on it was {AfD}. I am honestly perplexed about that.

There are so many policies. And no master index of them all. Some of them seem to contradict one another. That is a pretty brief reply. I have read "what wikipedia is not" a number of times. I just read it again. And I read the editing policy twice. Sorry I don't really understand how it relates to my request.

Like I said, I recognize that the brevity of your reply could be a clue to your level of interest in building bridges.

But, for the record, I haven't a clue to what this reply means, except of course that you won't make any attempts to advise me of any problems you see in the contributions I have made before you set in motion one or other step to delete those pages. -- Geo Swan 05:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the my AfD nomination was that she is non notable, for the reasons stated in my post on the AfD page. The article also is POV. Joaquin Murietta 14:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

la voz de la gente[edit]

Joaquin, thank you for your interesting message on my talk page. You may believe you are the voice of the people, but you are mistaken. You are merely pushing your own POV by gaming the WP system through bad faith ~~AfD~~ copy-vio nominations. By all means express your views on article talk pages, and by discussion we can all reach concensus. I am still of the opinion that your ~~AfD~~ copy-vio nomination was a 'back door' suppression of valid information that did not accord with your POV and was wholly inappropriate.

As to the points made in your message, my response, in your order, is:

First: any apology you wish to issue should be sent to User:Geo Swan, not me.

Second: I do not use the phrase "Gitmo" either, never have, and never will. What exactly is the subject of the Anglo and Scottish-American domination that you speak of? What has Thomas Jefferson's alleged fiddle playing prowess got to do with the Guantanamo Bay detainees? Which society is "ours" that you refer to that has been imposed upon by "my" Anglo society? I can only assume you are referring to Cuba.

Third: You are free to edit articles as you see fit. As with all edits, this will be open to review and alteration by other editors.

As regards the alleged copy-vio, well we both know that was a bad faith nomination, come on now Joaquin, let's move on and edit articles properly and discuss differences responsibly. As for accusations of engaging in Agitprop, I suggest you drop a line to User:Randy2063 who is on the same wavelength.

Finally, I am not a fan of any of the the particular incarnations of the Dukes of Atholl, nor am I an expert on fiddlers.

Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of research, but could you please post a map of Aztlán so that we can all understand where you are from - USA or Mexico? Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

???????Joaquin Murietta 21:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox[edit]

Hi - hope you don't mind, but I've "neutered" the stub templates in your sandbox - the sandbox kept on turning up in various geography stub categories. The templates are still in the sandbox, but now listed by their name rather than what they look like. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please withdraw your copy-vio nomination[edit]

Your vopy-vio allegation is absurd. You are just taking advantage of a backlog to push your point of view for a while. You have caused other users (not me) to waste a great deal of time on a non-issue. Please withdraw the nomination now. CalJW 12:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Proto t c 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I Support this statement and request too. --Apyule 14:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

GeoSwan's Mass Email a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees[edit]

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joaquin[edit]

Aside from your (ill-advised?) copyright violation notice on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, I noticed you've been following up a lot of User:Geo_Swan's edits, including (a misplaced AfD ), which really should have just been a simple redirect, and your strange comments on Talk:Mohammed_Hagi_Fiz regarding Geo Swan's edits again. Do you have a particular interst in this user's editing, or is this just coincidence. In addition, could I suggest you review and familiarise yourself with the Deletion policy, particularly WP:CSD before taking any further action. You do seem well-informed on the copyright procedure, albeit perhaps not fully conversant with the ins and outs of what constitutes a violation on a list of names. Proto t c 15:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

'It would take less time to rewrite it to avoid the copyvio than all this.' Yes. It would have. So why didn't you do that? Proto t c 15:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

response posted on Proto's talk page. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to A. Ahmad[edit]

I looked at your edit to A. Ahmad. Looked fine. Birth dates are good, and you found out that he was recently sentenced.

You don't have to tell me when you work on a page I've edited. The pages I've edited are all on my watchlist.

Like I said before, I will answer all civil questions, and consider all civil requests.

I think leaving any questions you have, over other people's edits, their content, presentation, or viewpoint, can safely be left on the article's talk page. -- Geo Swan 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Look mom! A post on my talk page to tell me that posts belong on the article's discussion page? Joaquin Murietta 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jamal Kiyemba[edit]

I think that you have done some good work on this. My comments about a possible political campaign were to do with AfD and copyvio notices rather than your treatment of articles, which I consider to be of quite a high standard. --Apyule 07:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Justin Frank[edit]

Any reason for the silliness you just posted? Keep your edit wars on your talk page please. --JJay 16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

White Boy Accuses Brown Boy of White Wash[edit]

I have responded on my talk page. Please have a look. --Apyule 11:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Maryville Middle School[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Clive Stafford Smith[edit]

I don't think that I've been involved with either this article or the one that you made a redirect (Clive Stafford-Smith), so I suspect that you've confused me with someone else. For what it's worth, after a quick (and uninformed) look I can't see a problem with what you did. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Addressing some of your concerns[edit]

Hello Joaquin. I appreciate your honesty in your voting, but just to be fair, it was one of my first weeks at wikipedia. Also there was no sockpuppet; I was using my normal IP address. But, I of course appreciate your concern and would just like to inform you that I have never done anything like that again and adhered to strict policy (never had 3rr again). Also to address your question, I assure you that in my 4 months at wikipedia, I have made more edits than most other editors. I feel I am ready for this. Everyone has problems in their first month, after that it's a rapid learning process. :) I thought I'd just clarify some of these concerns. Thank you very much. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ali Ahmad Said[edit]

Please see my question at Talk:Ali Ahmad Said about your recent welcome additions to that article. There is one very unclear sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Peter Parker (physician), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Lam Qua[edit]

Hi there, in the article is said that Lam Qua was active from 1836-1835. This should probably read 1846-1855. Could you cross-check with your sources. Pilatus 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for changing the date. It was 1836-1855 per [2]Joaquin Murietta 01:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sleepy Lagoon Murder[edit]

Please see this now properly formatted nomination page where other users will give you some help on how to improve the article. Harro5 02:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

One last effort[edit]

Comment available on history page....response available on his talk page...

I am hoping that you will not blank this explanation as you did with my last attempt to communicate regarding your comments to me. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

AFD Executive Order 12333[edit]

Thanks for your comment on my user page. Since you have withdrawn the nom, the point is now moot. My comment regarding bad faith was based on Geo Swan's response on the Afd. You are perhaps right that I should have checked the state of the article when you tagged it for Afd. Nevertheless, I fail to see how it warranted Afd even in its original form. Googling AFD Executive Order 12333 [[3]] gives 42,000 hits. In my opinion, use of the expansion template, or a message on the article talk page would have been a better way to go. When I have time, I'll look into the other articles you mentioned. --JJay 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dossary[edit]

Regarding your comments on my user page, I'm not sure how I can mediate because the whole topic is outside of my expertise. Looking at the edits, it would seem hard to justify a blanket removal based on spelling or other problems of that type (also a large removal should be explained on the talk page).

I'm trying to get more info on Al Dossary, but there doesn't seem to be much out there. There might be some POV issues in the article (reliance on unsourced lawyer quotes for example, exclusion of more positive information, etc). I'll try to formulate some comments later today. --JJay 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Lam Qua, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Targeted therapy[edit]

Targeted therapy is really nice, actually, because it documents new trends in clinical science in a comprehensive and clear way. I don't think we need to duplicate stuff from other pages, so using herceptin as an example for monoclonal antibodies is great; let monoclonal antibody list all the others, like gemtuzumab ozogamicin, rituximab and cetuximab.

I agree. Joaquin Murietta 15:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if there's other things I need to look at. There was a recent trial in the Lancet about gefitinib. I've not yet worked it into the article. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

and I'll check the next ASCO conference for more trials. Joaquin Murietta 15:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

You seem to have been active recently. Kudos on all your work. I'm also interested in Chinese history. Are you involved in biology or medicine? --Dpr 08:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious remarks. No, I am merely an opinionated generalist, with many interests. (I will comment more on your talk page.) Joaquin Murietta 14:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Emilio Kosterlitzky, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article targeted therapy, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Global legal information network, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Thirteen Factories, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your nice comment on the article Stratton Brothers case. I read your articles as well. Quite nice. I noticed that you actually took the trouble of writing articles that are linked to each other (Thirteen Factories, Peter Parker (physician) and Lam Qua): even better! A mark of a true Wikipedian, keep up the good work! RashBold 19:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

-Thanks for your kind feedback about my Ward Morehouse article. Glad you enjoyed it. J. Van Meter 04:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Blogs[edit]

You stated, "See disc at Grassroots Coverage AfD" in your edit to the article on Natalee Holloway. I'm having a hard time finding this citation. Could you please provide me a link? Thanks. --Yamla 16:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Leah Chase, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bill the Goat, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Rockero[edit]

I am a fairly new Wikipedia editor and was wondering if you'd be willing to read my articles. I have been trying to fill in some of the gaps regarding Chicano history and culture and the women's movement, but have recently been expanding/creating Native American-interest articles (I notice you have written on several New Mexico Pueblos). I am also looking for people to collaborate on Chicano articles (there is no Chicano Movement article, for example. BTW, props on your username, although it skirts dangerously close to Wikipedia's "don't use the names of histoic personages" username policy.--Rockero 23:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for disambiguating Caló. That article still needs work, but at least it's in a better place. The Chicanismo article looks pretty good; I'm guessing we're going to split the cultural and political articles into Chicanismo (culture) and Chicano Movement (political) then? I was hoping to include culture as part of the Chicano Movement article, as they are deeply intertwined, but a purely political article would fit better into the Civil Rights series as the Mexican-American portion of the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). But back to Chicanismo, I also hope (to find the time) to write articles for Chicano Art and the Chicano Art Movement. This is pretty much my area of expertise. I may want to transplant some of the Chicanismo article there with a "Main article" subheading, and leave the (non-art) aspects of culture there. Have you read José Antonio Burciaga's Drink Cultura: Chicanismo (ISBN 1877741078)? It has a lot of good info (Con Safos, comida, etc.) that should really go into the article. I don't have a copy of it but if you're not up to it, I'll check it out from the library. I'd jump right on it but as you can tell, I've got a lot of work to do. Thanks for linking to my articles btw. So what do you think of the proposals? And how do you go about finding out whether or not the images included in articles are copyrighted? I have a photo of Inez Garcia I'd like to upload and was thinking of writing the webmaster of the site I found it on....

Oh yeah and how do you nominate your articles for DYK?--Rockero 16:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Señor Murrieta-- Thanks for nominating Sandia Pueblo. But you know how admin types are, especially the ones who run the front page. But I've got an even better article now. I don't suppose you'd mind nominating Yvonne Wanrow, with a DYK something like "Did You Know that Yvonne Wanrow was a Colville Indian whose trial for the 1972 murder of a child molester brought about changes in the way the law affects women and Native Americans?" Now that's catchy! Once I'm through with this women-who-murder-men kick, I'll help out w/ some Chicano articles, se lo juro.--Rockero 08:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK I have some more specific recommendations for Chicanismo:

Intro: The intro is dead-on, but there may be a need to explain the repression of indigenous culture in Mexico (at least prior to the Revolution) and the repression of Mexican culture in the pre-movement United States.
Major Themes: I agree that the connection to the Earth (especially the American continent(s)) is a major theme. In fact, I have even heard one reading of the meaning of "Chicano" that traced it back to "Xicano", or a "person of the land" (or something like that-it was a long time ago.) Mexican and Indian agricultural traditions and the use of Mexican labor in the United States (and the rural lives farmworkers led) both contributed to this theme. As far as "political transformation through powerful leadership", I tend to disagree. The Chicano Movement has always been much more about collectivism than individualism. That's part of the reason that Chicano topics are under-represented: many of the contributions are by unknown, unnamed, anonymous individuals. Our culture cannot be judged by traditionally Western standards that stress individual accomplishments. Of course, there were strong leaders (Chavez and Huerta, Hector P. Garcia, Corky Gonzales, etc.) but their leadership tended to not to be as political (with the exception of JA Gutiérrez, who does not have an article yet). But the fact that political and social change are a big part of the movement is definitely a major theme. Instead of "strong familial ties extending back into Mesoamerican pre-history", I think I'd say something like "personal and cultural identity", which in Chicano culture is highly dependent on family ties. But Chicano identity also informed by the process of hybridization. The mestizo is the mélange of the Indigenous and European blood and cultures, and the Chicano is a mix of the Mexican mestizo with the American. As a part of the multicultural American experience, Chicanismo is also influenced by Native Americans (north and south of the border and not just the Aztecs), Asian Americans (especially Buddhist philosophy), African Americans (civil rights, the Brown Berets were modeled on the Black Panthers, and now hip-hop), and of course Anglos. Where you write Mesoamerican influences into the family theme, I really think that Indigenismo is a theme on its own (although interwoven with the other themes). This is not to be confused with Indianismo, which tended to idealize and stereotype natives, while indigenismo tried harder to see them as multi-dimensional people. Finally, the art. I agree completely, but I just think the phrasing is a bit flowery. And you should include the performing arts, as well. So I think it needs to be reworked, possibly with bullet points, and ought to include something like "The simple defense of Mexican and Chicano culture through its shameless practice."
Origins of the phrase - This part talks about the origin of the phrase "Chicano", not "Chicanismo". It should say somthing like "The word Chicanismo was first used in (year) by (person) to describe (phenomenon). It comes from the word Chicano and the Spanish suffix "-ismo", (ism). Discussion of the origin of the term "Chicano" belongs on the Chicano page, and it should include all the various explanations. (I hope to help with this).
Spiritual artistic themes: Chicanos did explore Aztec and Mayan mythology, but I don't see the myth of Popcatepetl and Itzaccíhuatl as having that much influence over the movement. (although, to be fair, it is mentioned in Sandra Cisneros' Caramelo.) The myth of Aztlán is much more fundamental (maybe it should be listed first?). The Virgin of Guadalupe, for her role as the protectress of the Americas and of Mexicans especially, gave and continues to give Mexicans and Chicanos a sense of a unique spiritual destiny (Non fecit taliter omni natione, etc). But the original documents (such as the Huei tlamahuiçoltica) were not influential until much later.
Comments about structure, etc: You start out the article saying that the movement began in the 1930's, but then give no history of any cultural activities in the 1930s. Some discussion about the way the term Chicanismo is retroactively applied to pre-Chicano Movement writers, artists, and "social bandits" may be merited. For instance, there is an author and artist who was a Franciscan priest in New Mexico in the early early days. I'll look up his name and tell you, but a standard history-style retelling of cultural and political activities would be illuminative. (His name was Fray Angelico Chavez, author of New Mexico Triptych and he was writing (in English) in the 1940s.)
Finally, the images: The ollin Tonatiuh (Sun calendar) and the codex with the voyage from Aztlán are definitely keepers. As far as Tlaloc goes, I think Quetzalcoatl (and to a lesser extent, Coatlicue) are the Aztec deities that have most greatly benefitted from the Chicano interest in native religions. They are commonly represented in murals and other artworks. But maybe we could keep Tlaloc with a caption like "Tlaloc, the Aztec god of rain. Chicanismo highlighted the lost religions and brought their figures into common currency", although I'd really prefer an image of the big Q.

I wish I would've taken time to make these suggestions before the article was featured as a DYK item. Pero ni modo. Let me know what you think about my suggestions and whether or not you plan to implement them.--Rockero 21:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to fiddling with Chicanismo yet. I wanted to re-read crucial parts of Drink Cultura first. But at one point, you asked me "what's next?" Well my User page is now replete with tasks that I'm struggling to find the time for. Have at.--Rockero 19:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means. That's what I meant by "Have at." You can probably find plenty on the movie stars on IMDB and elsewhere, might be a good place to begin.--Rockero 06:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to place the articles I really want to write near the tops of the lists, and the ones that I don't care who writes towards the bottom. Echale ganas, --Rockero 17:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ricardo Cruz[edit]

Consistency: Richard or Ricardo the whole time. (Ricardo)

Political

"There were very few Mexican-American in the 1960s and 1970s" college students? Go into why he was resentful of catholic church: devout believer, part of wealthiest church w/ poorest members, also massive land holdings when so many struggles have been about land

LA branch of RUP, the RUP was founded in Texas but had branches all over. Links (to Maldef, RUP, etc) should be wikilinks with external links separate, afterwards. And go into the hall case. If you want I can look into that for you 8)

Re: Menudo[edit]

Hi. I wasn't familiar with that, thank you. Indium 21:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Judith Hauptman, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

bill the goat[edit]

sorry, I was premature in flagging the article with {{accuracy}}. Incredible story though, so thanks for adding the links --User:Afterword 20:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Chicanismo, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

DYK[edit]

Hi, just saw your suggestion on Get for DYK. However, you seem to have missed signing your entry. just thought I'll let you know. --Gurubrahma 06:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Sanhedrin (tractate), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Problems with your Categories and articles[edit]

Hi: Thank you for trying to add to the Jewish articles. However: You are placing too many incorrect "Categories" into articles. Do NOT put Category:Jewish history into articles about people! Also do not add the "|*" sign into the category template as that places that article into the head of the category, which is simply just false. I am trying to correct your mistakes. You are also creating articles without first checking if they already appear. For example: Why did you create Get (divorce document) if there is already Get (conflict)? You are creating problems at the same time that you create the articles, so please check carefully first!!! Thanks for giving these matters your urgent attention! IZAK 05:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Judah ben Ilai, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Aruba boycott[edit]

Joaquin,

I was trying to give more balance to the article as far as remarks on the "boycott" are concerned.

I added: The interim chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in The Hague, Mr. Blakeman, told Dutch diplomats that the call for a travel boycott of Aruba by the Governor of Alabama is not supported by the government of the United States.

You deleted this.

The reason I added this sentence is threefold:

A US governor can call for a boycott but cannot enforce one, that is the prerogative of the federal government of the US.

The federal government of the US, through Mr.Blakeman, has recently - on request of the Dutch Foreign Office - given the official view of the federal government on the boycott, as stated above.

You have cited several views of Mrs. Beth Twitty Holloway, why not admit one official statement from a US diplomat assigned to give the US view on the the boycott?

Source: official website of the Dutch Foreign Office in The Hague (in Dutch)

Look forward hearing from you 86.84.82.113 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ricardo Cruz, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Congrats. I edited a bit. Hope it's cool.--Rockero 08:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Wikiproject?[edit]

Sure, count me in. I'm willing to help in whatever I can. I won't worry to much about NPOV's because those participating must do so under Wiki's NPOV's guide lines. Get in touch with my son, User:AntonioMartin, he's written many articles about Mexicans and as I, a irm believer in the Latino unity. Gracias Tony the Marine 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Catolicos Por La Raza, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Moctesuma Esparza, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

La Raza[edit]

Dear Joaquin: Hello! I heard recently about a wikiproject directed towards La Raza, Chicanos, et al. The reason I am interested is that La Raza is now a widely known term across Latin America and "Dia de La Raza" celebrated even in Argentina, and, yes, in Puerto Rico, where I am from.

Anyways, I would like to take a look at the page. I am very proud of my Mexicanos brothers and sisters, have written articles about Julio Cesar Chavez, Jose Chavez y Chavez, Cristian and Veronica Castro, Mexicana, Aeromexico, Grupo Bronco, Puerto Penasco and many, many other Mexican related topics.

While I may not fully understand what it is like to be a Mexican perse, I am very proud of what Mexicans have done for us Hispanics and I recognize the high value Mexicans have in our group of nationalities. By the way, as an interesting fact, while us Puerto Ricans are American citizens by defacto, most of us (almost 60 percent, not counting the hipocrite ones that want PR to be a full state) actually prefer to be identified as Puerto Rican by nationality, and Hispanic by race. Just thought you'd be interested in knowing this oxymoronical but true fact. I'm one of the ones who cannot wait to see Puerto Rico become fully independent.

I'd appreciate if you send me the project page as a favor, and I want to check it out.

Thanks, and God bless you!

Antonio Latino Forever Martin

Premio[edit]

This jalapeño of consafismo is awarded to Joaquin for his leadership of WikiProject Chicano/Mexican-American and his all-around Chicanismo. Presented by Rockero this Día de la Virgen, 2005.

Thanks![edit]

Joaquin, thanks for your comment on my talk page. Also, felicidades on this Virgen de Guadalupe day! I will proceed to become a member of wikiproject:La Raza and Im honored to help in any way I can.

Thanks, and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Latinos #1 Por Siempre! Martin

Rejection of Tanakh[edit]

Hi Joaquin: Please see and vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12#Category:Hebrew Bible at [4] where it is being suggested that the word "Tanakh" is "not neutral", and I am trying to explain to them that it is in keeping with NPOV to convey the way Judaism uses certain terms to describe the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. Thanks. IZAK 19:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Maria Helena Viramontes, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

New vote for pro-Tanakh[edit]

Hi Joaquin: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy [5] for ANOTHER vote to rename the following. Thank you, IZAK 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh --> Category:Tanakh

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh events --> Category:Tanakh events

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people --> Category:Tanakh people

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places --> Category:Tanakh places

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh prophets --> Category:Tanakh prophets

Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh-related stubs --> Category:Tanakh stubs

Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim --> Category:Ketuvim

Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im --> Category:Nevi'im

New vote for Tanakh moved[edit]

You can find the NEW vote to rename Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh --> Category:Tanakh etc. now located at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hebrew Bible/Tanakh [6] Thanks again. IZAK 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article David Wolpe, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Pls. sign your suggestions so that it makes our job easier ;) --Gurubrahma 14:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad[edit]

Joaquin, O.K., so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 05:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi, I uploaded an image of Ari Meyers within the the accordance established by Wikipedia (source and licence) and someone put it up for deletion because "it is unencyclopedic". The image is of good taste and just because it is a wallpaper image I don't think it should be deleted. Please view and if you can, express your opinion. Images and media for deletion/2005 December 24 Thank you, Tony the Marine 04:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine

I wish you all the happiness in the world and remember, if an injustice is ever committed against you or one of your articles, I will always be by your side. Your friend Tony the Marine

Note: Ari Meyers Image Results: 15 "Keep" / 2 "Delete" *However, I, the Marine. decided to replaced the image with one that has a clearer copyright status, thank you because you have shown to be a just person. Tony the Marine 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Teatro Campesino, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Scrux.com / Natalee Holloway[edit]

If 'Facts in Evidence' does not contain verifiable facts, then it probably doesn't need a link at all. What do you think it is? --Dystopos 16:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems like what they're doing is trying to lay out the reports regarding verifiable facts, so they aren't linking so much to opinion columns and criticism - which seems to be a healthy reference for our Natalee Holloway article. Perhaps the wording for the link was a little too promotional, but do you think there's cause to remove the link altogether? --Dystopos 19:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)