User talk:Ciroa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Ciroa! Thanks for reverting the graffitti over on the Mountain Gorilla article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Ciroa, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ombudsman. However, I think I'm pretty used to editing in Wikipedia, a thing I've done for almost three years. You know, with all due respect, "canned" encouragement can be counterproductive... :) --Ciroa (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement[edit]

Just a quick note to say that you are exactly right on the issues with the Bay of Pigs article. I hope that you will find the desire to improve it ... for Wikipedia's sake.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I wouldn't dare to touch that article without a couple of years of reading serious sources about that incident, because public information about this case is always biased. Cuba won, who cares about bitter comments 50 years later? Is only in a few cases that Latin American countries can say that the sword is mightier than the pen...--Ciroa (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Holland[edit]

Thank You for your honesty and unbiased integrity... this is very much appreciated. From Middim13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.29.67.53 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. After reading your talk page, I'd dare to say that it's always hard to tackle the american defense industry view of history, even about marginal events. Good luck in your quest, and relax, my man... you're never alone in this wide world.

==USS Holland SS-1==

As you most likely know, I have been banished (for an indefinate period) from making edits on Wikipedia, as "they" say I haven't properly "sourced" my references. (Whatever...) That's fine, as I accomplished what it was I was trying to do in the first place, and that was to set certain "distorted" records straight - as never honestly done before in regards to early modern submarine history... i.e. John Philip Holland's company. U.S. Navy Ships have been named after those who took credit for the contributions of others... i.e. Electric Boat's General Manager, Frank Taylor Cable, and the company's Director, Lawrence York Spear. Both men failed to acknowledge the pioneering work of the man who came before them i.e. Arthur Leopold Busch as they conspired in silence to distort the actual set of events that transpired for their own self-serving purposes. Over the years, this company (Electric Boat/General Dynamics) has promised me that: "We will make every effort to remind people of your g-grandfathers role while pioneering our first submarines". Problem here is that they have made no such effort to "set company records straight" as they promised they would do - as they continue in their ways to suppress and distort their history for their own "selfish" aggenda's that leads to a different version of events that do not accurately reflect on the company's true origins, and just who did what/where/when/how/why etc. The book The Defender, "The Story of General Dynamics" points out the fact that the company "takes refuge in very poor memories" as they only remember what they want, telling us only what they want us to know... also that they are known to be "steeped in scandals" since their inception as EB...

I thank you again for you interest and sincerity. From Middim13

USS HOLLAND /John P. Holland site.[edit]

Hi, from Middim13

Could you please help me out with somthing regarding the USS Holland/John P. Holland article. Bill Cat has "once again" interupted another article with his biased agendas that don't always lead to the facts. He seems to have quite a large amount of knowledge over a wide spectrum of issues and topics, but I believe he is (somewhat) misinformed about this one. Personally, I have only contributed to articles in which I have (a considerable amount of) knowledge about, therefore, I won't make edits to something that I know little about. I don't think the same could be said of BillCat... as he just sits at his computer all day making changes to 1000's of articles, some of which are legit, others are just what he believes to be the case. He has removed Arthur L. Busch's contributions to these two sites. You had previously made an edit to the USS Holland site properly stating a source for that information. He has deleated (your edits) recently and I hope you can do this system a service by reinstateing the edit that you made several months ago. Thanks for your help and (unbiased) understanding of the information within. Can you intervene the John P. Holland article as well. Thank you again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.96.235 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you come back to Wikipedia soon. Thanks for your understanding and concern.

If you get this chance.... SEE: USS HOLLAND/JOHN P. HOLLAND WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE...[edit]

Hi, from Middim13

Could you please help me out with somthing regarding the USS Holland/John P. Holland article. Bill Cat has "once again" interupted another article with his biased agendas that don't always lead to the facts. He seems to have quite a large amount of knowledge over a wide spectrum of issues and topics, but I believe he is (somewhat) misinformed about this one. Personally, I have only contributed to articles in which I have (a considerable amount of) knowledge about, therefore, I won't make edits to something that I know little about! I don't think the same could be said of BillCat... as he just sits at his computer all day making changes to 1000's of articles, some of which are legit, others are just what he believes to be the case. Anyhow, he has removed Arthur L. Busch's contributions to these two sites. You had previously made an edit to the USS Holland site properly stating a source for that information. He has deleated (your edits) recently and I hope you can do this system a service by reinstateing the edit that you made several months ago. Thanks for your help and (unbiased) understanding of the information within. Can you intervene the John P. Holland article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.118.180 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Middim13, but I think I'm not in the position to correct Mr. Cat, I have not the knowledge.--Ciroa (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that User:Middim13 has been community banned. That means that he is not allowed to edit at all, even from IP addresses, and all contributions of the user are to be reverted per policy. If you are contacted by him again you should report it to WP:ANI. Thanks, -MBK004 06:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you make any edits on behalf of a banned user (proxy editing), you yourself can be sanctioned and possibly even banned as well. -MBK004 06:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. However, please note that the editions I made to the article that user Middim13 talks about were made before he contacted me, because as far as I know are true and verifiable. Those very same opinions, I imagine heatedly supported by him, apparently caused his banning. Notice I refused to enter this kind of row with user BillCat, who hasn't been banned but use reverts of referenced phrases...
I have no knowledge of the causes of Middim13 banning besides what's written in his user page, which, of course, I read when I received the messages by him displayed in this page. I ask you to imagine for a moment that I am as intelligent as you are and that when I receive such messages I can imagine the motivations and feelings of Middim13, puh-leeze. So, I can say thanks to you for the first warning, but you should refrain somehow from sounding threatening like you do in the second one, will you? I find insulting to insinuate that people in this site could have so abismal large lack of common sense, specially considering the prudent answer I gave to this particular user in view of his repeated requests (you can check I erased a repetition of the last one written here).
I have been a very decent contributor to Wikipedia to have to be threatened in that way, so, please, I ask you to consider, before posting like you have done in my talk page, to ponder if the user deserves to be treated so rudely. I find very disturbing your second post, taking in account the probable history behind it, so much that I cannot refrain from saying that if you have to ban me, go ahead and do it for some behaviour I display, not because you seem to be afraid of Middim13 using a proxy. If my opinions, whichever they are, are as stupid as to be simply the voice of a third person, then what am I doing here? This message of yours wouldn't be taken by me in this light if I weren't aware of the ugliest side of Wikipedia editing: if I may add this without sounding as rude as you, you represent the work of many, your words could be sweeter, just in case you have to swallow them.
You could also reconsider if the row you could had with this particular user is blinding you in such a way that some of your activitites as moderator or editor are being actually counterproductive. I also recommend you highly, with a long experience as moderator elsewhere backing me up (since 1994, for the love of Pete) if you shouldn't revise the time a user has been contributing and the kind of contributions he has made before issuing such a stern message. If this is a bad day for me joining a message with good intentions on your side, I apologize in advance, but, c'mon, man! (or woman). If something can be learned from the way I moderate, next time you could simply state that certain activities are forbidenn and refer the user to the proper policy article, instead of saying that he will be banned or sanctioned, because, frankly (and, I hope, inadvertently) you sound like the "thought" police invading this site: as I read your message, if I dare to think in the same way as a banned user, I will be banned. What's this?
Finally, I can understand the level of stress you might have moderating this site, specially with the kind of persons you may have encountered, so let me end this post by saying I sympathize with you. So, if you think this is simply another rant from another anonymous enraged guy in the net, go ahead and ignore it. I don't want explanations from you nor arguments with you, but a very small change in the way you post warnings. --Ciroa (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Word of advice - when a Sysop of Wiki gives you a warning, take it seriously and understand they are following policy in the tone of their statements. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not taking any warning trivially and, frankly, I follow strictly any requests from editors: I understand very well the pressures they take and the kind of people they have to deal (I work as System Office general manager for my country's road agency, so I have many Sysops working for me). However, even Sysops are not Gods and they make mistakes: I do not agree with threatening someone with penalties for things he hasn't done, HammerFilmFan, thus my answer to MBK004, and I know of no policy in Wikipedia that requests to make threats. Any Sysop in my agency that behaves in this way would receive a stern warning from me, because we have do a policy of not abusing privileges. However I would be grateful if you can point to me what policy is that in Wikipedia that requires to issue warnings in advance. Notice also that he's threatening me if I serve as proxy to someone that has been banned, that looks desperately for my support in a edit war and that (in case you have not the time to check this particular issue) is the grandson of the person whose biography he is trying to edit. I may be slow, but I'm not that stupid. I also think you're angry with me for the comments I posted on the talk page about Iran economic sanctions today, hence your comment (and you checking my talk page, out of the blue). So, my advice for you is: breath. As for myself, I won't check your talk page to see what negative comments I can find about you to delve into things that happened two years ago and give you unnecessary advices: I have a life and, by the way, a very busy one.--Ciroa (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

William Crookes[edit]

I presume your were referring to my undoing of 200.118.72.102's edit? I agree with your changes. They seem unimportant to the subject. You did not step on my toes, but you are welcome to continue with your efforts along those lines. I believe that I saw the removal, clicked on the diamond article saw it was good then reverted. I do hundreds of vandalism removals (hopefully vandalism) each day, so I don't recall the specifics of my thinking. A good edit summary always helps stave off the vandal patrol! Thanks for your contributions. Jim1138 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Creationism[edit]

I've reverted some of your edits - Creationism isn't confined to Protestant Christians, eg List of Catholic creationist organisations. If I've reverted anything else you think needs restoring, feel free, but the Protestant bit was simply wrong. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Doug, I imagine your motives. Anyway, as the list of "Catholic" organizations mentioned is a fistful of fringe groups with doubtful affiliations to the Catholic Church, I find your quotation of this article a pathetic effort to drag the Catholicism into the propaganda efforts of Creationist believers. After perusing your talk page, I decided I have better things to do than to enter an edit war with a person like you. Thanks for the "useful" reverting that undoubtedly reflects the thought and official position of the Catholic Church... not. It is a shame how Wikipedia articles like the one on Creationism are tainted by desperate efforts to include other groups into the beliefs of some American Christian fundamentalists and the statistics about people supporting Creationism in other parts of the world and in other religions show evident intention for creating in the people that reads the article the impression that it is a generalized cult when you are (I imagine) perfectly aware of the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. They have denied one thousand times (and not now, but through history) the main tenets of Creationism. You are also perfectly aware that to drag the Catholic Church into Creationism based on a list of five groups that are at best tenuously connected with Catholicism is an act of desperation, but suit yourself. Frankly, it is very hard to block the sun with a finger, except for the person holding the finger up.--Ciroa (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page but I'll put it here also. Some Roman Catholics and many Orthodox Catholics (Greek, Russian, Serbian at least) believe in Creationism. That's a fact. Belief in Creationism isn't limited to Protestant Christians. That's a fact. Your failure to afford me good faith also seems to be a fact. It's also a fact that if I'd known it would be necessary I could have explained all this, but it just seemed obvious that Creationism isn't limited to Protestant Christians. And I would think that you must know this. And that nowhere does it say that the Roman Catholic Church believes in Creationism, that's a complete red herring - in fact it makes it clear that the official stance is quite the opposite and goes into that in some detail. If anyone tries to claim that the Roman Catholic Church believes in Creationism I'll revert them, just as I've reverted claims that the early church preached a flat earth. Small minorities do however believe in Creationism.Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Allright, clear and understood. So, as the Catholic Pope has expressed many times that the Roman Catholic Church is against Creationism (i.e. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ ) and the Orthodox Church has never opposed evolution (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm), can I say "Protestant and Orthodox Christians and some renegade Catholic groups"? I fail to comprehend how can you be called Roman Catholic if you go against the Pope. Once I get your "license" I will go ahead and state that fact, because I see as unscientific to claim that Roman Catholic church can be included among the Christians that support creationism. BTW, I am no Christian. This also goes in you talk page, btw.--Ciroa (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
You are thinking of Papal infallibility but that doesn't apply here. And the other problem would be that to say 'renegade' you'd need a reliable source. I'm pretty sure that they are still Roman Catholics in good standing, just disagreeing with a position of the Church that isn't basically a religious one. It seems safe to just leave it as Christans, which is undoubtely true. I'm not a Christian either, so I don't have a dog in this race. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course I´m not thinking about Papal infallibility. You must know that the Catholic Church is an organization with definite doctrines and public statements about them. If a person claims himself to belong to the Catholic Church and believe that God is made of fairy dust you cannot say that the Catholic Church believes the same. Including the Catholic Church among the organizations that support creationism is frankly stupid. The subtle difference you make between the Catholic Church (as the majority of people call Roman Catholic Church) and some groups that call themselves with similar names only serves to claim that creationism is supported by catholics. This will confuse many people that use Wikipedia into thinking that catholics supporting creationism. Orthodox Church is not Catholic, it seems to me you don't know very well the differences between different christian congregations, hence your confussion, and, for extension, the muddling caused in such a sensitive subject.--Ciroa (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Luis Andres Colmenares Case[edit]

Hello Ciroa. Thank you for your attempts to update the article. Brilliant :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I replied on my talk page, to keep the conversation in one place. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Another reply on my TP :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Tet Offensive[edit]

Tet Offensive, an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Aires Flight 8250[edit]

Hi! About this edit, there's nothing unusual about officials of safety investigation boards not blaming anyone. The purpose is to find causes to prevent future accidents, not to apportion blame. Therefore, what the colonel is saying is nothing unusual. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Generally in order for an article to refer to something as "curious"/"strange"/etc there needs to be an RS or columnist/journalist who says "this is strange/curious" - Since this controversy occurred it's a good idea to gather all of the sources involved and cite them to show that there is this controversy. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The reason why I know the adjective is not necessary is due to the principles in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch . While "curious" is not specifically listed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch think about the examples there. The use of "curious" seemed to be editorializing. It was the editor's opinion that it was "curious" - that is not needed in an encyclopedia article. Instead find a reliable source that says specifically what is happening with it.

Also the principle of WP:V is that information must come from published sources - truth is not the criterion for inclusion. It is verifiability. I have to be able to look at a published source and find the information in it. So we rely on published sources to tell us "this is unusual" or "this is strange" - we cannot say so if published sources don't say so.

Also be careful of Wikipedia:Synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories[edit]

Thank you for your edits on this article. A definite improvement. People who hear of these stories can now come to Wikipedia and get the correct sourced information. However, what does "in that tonic" mean? (This edit) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement and support to the changes I made to this article, Richard. I know this kind of "theories" tend to attract unwelcome modifications, I tried to be prudent and fair. I modified the idiom "in that tonic". Answering your question I think it refers to the general tone or accent (emphasis) of a discourse, as you can see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tonic (check definition 11). After your comment I'm convinced I mistranslated a Spanish idiom (my native tongue), where "en esa tónica" refers to the general pattern or style in a discourse, while in English, as I understand now, refers only to the musical tone or intonation of a phrase. I changed it to "In that vein". Thanks a lot, I learned something new. Ciroa (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I kinda thought it meant something like that. Well thanks, I have learned something new as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilbur L. Creech, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages FOIA and Northrop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Camargue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colonial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ciroa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)