User talk:HectorRodriguez
Welcome[edit]
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 16:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hector, please don't insert words like "tacky" to describe something--it's definitely not NPOV. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 00:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Hector, there is definitely a place for talking about Sept. 11th in Chile....but not on the page about services commemorating the 9/11/2001 attacks. I can tell from your edits that you have a strong opinion about this, and strong opinions are fine here...but you can't let that bias your editing. Please keep all your edits NPOV--use that article above to help you understand what we mean by that here. Thank you, Jwrosenzweig 00:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Your vendetta against the US and in favor of al-Qaeda have cause the creation of many, many empty pages because of the way you've gone about redirecting pages. I'm trying to fix all of these, but you've made a mass of tangled redirects, which may have been your intent all along. RickK 06:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Hector, please excuse Ricky -- he gets excited easily. (Hi, Rick! :-) While the idea of taking out the word “terrorist” from a lot of article titles has merit, it’s still a good idea to move slowly enough so as not to freak out the other contributors.
- Rick, please be nice to Hector, and let’s see if we can work this out. --Uncle Ed 19:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please see my recent comments on the East Germany talk page. You're right about the term "Communist state." Since the creation of the "Communist state" article (and the controversies surrounding it), this term has emerged as the consensus on Wiki for the government type. This was never my preference. But it's better than having to explain over and over again why one cannot conflate government type and a theoretical model/typology (e.g., "totalitarian" - one of the most commonly abused words around here).
However, since I've finally found someone else interested in using a better term, I'm wondering what you think about my idea to redirect the article on Communist state to Communist Party-run state, which would be relatable to Westerners, yet not a complete misnomer in Marxism-Leninism. 172 04:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- BTW, thanks for your kind words on the conflicts page. The abuse that you've suffered for the past couple of days has been shocking. The only reason that RickK didn't lose his admin privileges for his bullying tactics was the Fox News worldview that dominates our articles on world politics. Fell free to contract me when you're treated unreasonably again. 172 04:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why not use Communist state when discussing politics and governments and Communist society when discussing economics and/or the Marxist-Leninist perspective? --Uncle Ed 14:55, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
HectorRodriguez:
Working on this site for over a year, I've witnessed countless disputes (even mediating some as an admin), so I might be able to offer you some advice for handling the "terrorism" problem.
First, you need to recognize the challenges you face in your effort to avoid the use of the term "terrorism" in U.S.-related articles.
Policy may be on your side, but that doesn't always matter. Every article you've edited is trolled by a group of people with weak knowledge, but strong opinions. You will get the glib, knee jerk jingoistic "you are anti-US!" reactions to your edits. You will be dealing with people who have no grasp of the stark reality of the world at large. Expect to be attacked by people who live in an utter fantasy world formed thorough indoctrination into unquestioned patriotism, unexamined assumptions, and a general absence of understanding of world history, especially U.S. neocolonial ventures in the Third World. When you start hearing jingoism from Wiki users on talk pages, don't bother reasoning with them. If they're not thinking in the first place, they're unlikely to respond to reason. Frankly, it's almost impossible for anyone to challenge this narrow-minded, chauvinistic worldview without encountering the gross abuse that you've been suffering.
In theory, you should be able to remove loaded terms (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid) unilaterally. However, when working on controversial subjects (see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles), the practice if far different from the policy. Even if your edits are unambiguously within policy constrains, and even if NPOV is contingent on your changes, you will be, if they go against the nationalistic fantasies of U.S. users, you will be browbeat, threatened, and libeled - regardless of policy - since you will be outnumbered.
But there is room to maneuver. If you want, I can list users who'd be effective at mediating disputes. User:Jiang, for instance, is an ardent anti-Communist, but has some of the best instincts when it comes to NPOV, relevance, and standard definition.
You can even avoid these jingoistic users outright. You can discuss the interpretation of policy with the users who have the most influence on writing it (and they're far more reasonable than users who are motivated by ein volk, ein reich, ein fuehrer).
On the mailing list, you can engage in a mature dialogue with the more level-headed users, including the site's owner, Jimbo Wales. The use of the term "terrorist" and related policy questions are already being discussed. Here's the link: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/date.html If you won enough support on the mailing list (which is quite possible), you'd not have to argue with anyone on the article talk pages or watch your edits be automatically reverted. The Wikipedia:Village Pump is also a good page to discuss the interpretation of policy.
I hope this helps. It would be a shame if you're chased away. This site desperately needs to address its U.S. white collar/white male biases. 172 12:59, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Common names[edit]
Hello Hector. We have over a long period of time have agreed to a set of naming conventions that are listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. One of the more important ones is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Please see that page and its talk page for rationale. Thank you. :) --mav 00:41, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Attack"[edit]
Why do you move 9/11 pages to locations with "Attack" (capital A) instead of "attack" (lowercase a) in the title? The main article is at September 11, 2001 attacks, not September 11, 2001 Attacks. Keep it consistent. --Jiang 03:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please discuss you edits at Talk:Saddam Hussein. The page is now protected. Moreover, User:Wik, User:Kingturtle, and I have made it clear that attacking you is no justification for reverting an edit to a page. 172 05:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Once again committing an untruth. Kingturtle never said any such thing. And you and Wik are hardly impartial. RickK 05:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This was obviously implied. When you were attacking Hector and me, Kingturtle stated: "The article was protected not because of any individual. The article suffered six consecutive reverts! No individual is being blamed. Please, as 172 has requested, begin discussion here of content issues." 172 05:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Your Opinon[edit]
The people who attack the world trade center on Sept 11, 2001, where TERRORISTS no matter how you look at it if you think otherwise respond on my talk page thanks.--Plato 07:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- So in your opinion, he's wrong. What's your point? Don't be rude to Hector. He's been persecuted enough as it is. 172 18:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)