User talk:MILH

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


Hello, MILH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Kf4bdy 21:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Greetings! I do a lot of vandalism patrol when I'm otherwise unoccupied, and this morning a kid from Jefferson County Public Schools (Wheat Ridge, Colorado, was targeting the Pinochet article with stuff like this [1]. I usually just hit "rollback" and block the offender after they've been warned a couple times. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings again. I looked briefly at the changes at Pinochet. While it's a rather severe cut, it's a content dispute with another editor, so your best bet is to discuss it on the talk page and attempt to achieve consensus on restoring all or part of your version, or a rewritten version which satisfies the other editor(s). (My own knowledge of Pinochet and Chilean politics is amateur at best, so I don't know which is better.) You can revert changes by going to page history, clicking on the last version you think is acceptable, clicking "edit page", and saving -- but this is a bad idea in content disputes, because once "edit wars" start they are very hard to stop, and the community takes a dim view of them unless they involve clear vandalism. Make your case on the talk page and wait for someone else knowledgeable about the topic to chime in. Oh--another thing you can do is look through the article history to see who the main authors of the article were, and contact them for their opinions. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Legacy and Influence[edit]

Yeah, I just put them together because it looked neater and more worked on. I thought this because the Legacy was really short and not expanded much, but influences was, so I just combined them. It's perfectly fine split up though.

Yeah, like they say, learn something new every day. Glad you added that. Take it easy. willsy May 24 2006 10:04


Yes, it's one of those sentences that has been in the article for a while, but... I don't think anyone knows what to do with it because it's been in that section for so long, and there's no other place for it because the other headings are just so damned specific. No idea really, but I think the article could use another face lift. Not to brag, but you should have seen it before I gave it the look it has right now.

The article still needs a lot of work, glad you've taken interest in it, because I've really lost mine with some people with their bickering "this shouldn't be included", and "this shouldn't look like that". It's a lot better than it was, but God it could be a lot better and more professional.

Ever read Flann O'Brien's "The Third Policeman"? Just wondering, good book, got it yesterday.

willsy 10:37

Third Policeman, etc...[edit]

Yeah, the Third Policeman is good, weird, but really good.

I don't know about Pinochet, so I wouldn't be able to tell about cover up and real truth. If you tell me where to look, etc... I might be able to help you more. willsy May 25 2006 8:27

Saint George[edit]

[2] Please, no personal attacks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "First and only warning"[edit]

I included the undisputed fact that Bachelet can speak some Russian and can read Cyrillic, and you are calling it vandalism.

I said it was an irrelevant fact for an encyclopedia article. And other editors seems to agree with me. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You are deliberately trying to smear my reputation because you do not like the undisputed facts that I am including in certain articles.

Can you please prove how I am "smearing your reputation"? ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also noted that you have been tampering with discussion entries of other editors.

Can you please provide proof of this? ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you continue with this libel, and if you continue to eliminate information that is accurate but which you do not care for, I will be forced to formally notify an administrator.

Actually I was thinking about contacting an administrator myself. Please go ahead. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to solve these disputes in a civil manner. You have rejected my offer of civility, and instead have chosen an aggressive, libelous attitude.

How civil it is to not respond to my numerous requests to solve this in Talk? You only seem to care about reverting without discussing. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Most seriously of all, you have eliminated objective, undisputed facts, apparentley because you do not like the political inference that can be drawn from said information.

I have no problem with your "undisputed facts" as long as you can provide unbiased sources of information to validate them. Wikipedia doesn't care about original research or personal opinions. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tree revert rule[edit]

Please be aware that there is a Wikipedia policy that blocks users who revert an article more than three times within 24 hours. I've noticed that you have violated this rule in the Alejandrina Cox incident article. Because you are a new user, I will not report this violation, but be aware that if you violate this rule again, I will report it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 15:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Which is the problem if she can speak russian ? our president not even speak english :-)) Jor70 11:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gonzalo Lira". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 July 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As a note for the future, you need to leave polite messages (either custom or using the templates) on the IP's talk page, informing and warning about the 3RR limit. You should also create a talk page section and push the IP to edit there. I've left the warning, thank you for the talk page edit. If they do continue to revert as is, I'll file a report on WP:EWN and let them handle it from there. Ravensfire (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Something else - please try to avoid calling them a troll or describing their edits as vandalism. Although contrary to BLP policy, their edits are a good faith attempt to improve the article. The edits are not vandalism on Wikipedia and the editor should not be described as such. Please consider refactoring the post you left on the article talk page and avoid calling the IP such terms in the future. It does a lot to try to defuse a situation. As it is, the IP is using similar language back towards you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN3 and Gonzalo Lira[edit]

MILH, here's some advice for the future. I didn't block you for edit warring in the Lira article because I found the IP's edit to be a straightforward WP:BLP violation. Therefore, your reversions were exempt. However, next time, mark your reverts as BLP violations so it's clear that's your motive. In addition, I would have taken the issue to WP:BLPN, not to WP:RFM. This is not a content dispute. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you. MILH (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi MILH, thank you for taking the time to file a request for mediation. Unfortunately this isn't a suitable case for mediation. When an obvious violation happens, there are several steps you can take. As Bbb23 points out, above, it is a good idea to mark the violation in the edit summary when you revert. Another action (and here I'm repeating Ravensfire's comment) would be to place a warning on the individual's talk page. This helps other users to know that the individual is repeating a violation. Another action to take if the situation continues to be repeated might be to report the violation on the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. I note that the individual has now been blocked. All's well that ends well. Sunray (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Gonzalo Lira, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Gonzolo Lira - Need for a Rewrite in Total, Issues and Concerns[edit]

Res Ipsa loquitur - it speaks for itself, that by listing a resume-like-chronology, the profession will be inferred by the reader especially since there are "three attempts at professions" it cannot be assumed by the writer that any of them are meaningful or have continuity. With the revisions we don't know that St. George's College is a prep school (High School). We don't know that Jose Miguel Carrera was a founding-farther of Chile. Is it really relevant for a living person to have genealogical pedigree several generations in the past? I am related to several famous people but I don't list those people on my biography. We don't know what Lira's primary degree is. It happens to be a bachelors degree. A doctoral degree or even a masters being more of a credential. As written a reader gleams the false impression that he has a bachelors and a masters degree! There is an improvement in chronology which comes at the cost of continuity. (three books, one film, a a few opinion pieces). Do you list the books, film, and opinion pieces or the chronology. I personally feel that listing like credentials together by date would be firmer. Eponymous is "a person giving his name to something" as endorsement. His blog is self authored! Editorially, This would be the same thing as saying that "The peas on menu are tasty, when in fact they are just peas." The approach of the entry in total is self aggrandizement which is not acceptable. The linked source of the blog counter requires establishment of an id and password, If we were talking about statistics for Wikipedia, a top site on the internet, then supporting statistics would be warranted. Here they are not. The linked source is "marketing" of a live person to provide credibility where there is none. Opinion pieces would be more accurate to describe his participation in Internet based media outlets. Continuity in blogging appears to be sporadic both in 2010 also in early 2014. I cannot imagine his blog being a vocation of any kind. Frankly I don't see a vocation of any kind. I see a few credentials of little merit over three disparate fields. I am being intentionally harsh, as people can self learn or switch fields, what I am not seeing is an expert in any field or a renaissance man capable of excellence in any one field. A factual chronology lets the reader draw the conclusion. It would be better to list Gonzola Lira followed by a supportable chronology and then let the reader decide if he is author (of three books few have read), a film maker (of a single film few people have seen), or a pundit on media outlets (few people pay attention to). Those are my conclusions trying to research the substance behind the hype after going to every link on this entry. Who am I to judge! If the fellow was a commentator on CNBC I might use the word Pundit. Factually, I was a guest on CNBC and I am not a pundit or guru. Unfortunately, pundit is similar to guru and lacks professionalism. A key point in 2014 is whether or not his opinions materialized to fact. In 2014 we have a statement by Lira reiterating his opinion of 2010, I think this is more relevant. The 2014 reiteration of a 2010 opinion means that he still has confidence that his prediction will come to fruition. By having a chronology of the lynchpin prediction we establish a track record while at the same time acknowledging that what he has to say is both relevant and possible. These kinds of opinion pieces are dangerous because they remain operable until disproven. This is the ways conspiracy theories work whereby a position gets put forth that becomes impossible to disprove. Additionally, what was popular in 2010 is not popular today as it relates to Lira. The initial prediction and follow on result (which is a reiteration on his part) is more relevant. There is a bias in puffing up a live person

By far this would be the cleanest, unbiased, and most neutral biography; (I am not harsh here because my opinions about Lira don't not count! NPOV)

Gonzalo Lira (born February 29, 1968) is a Chilean-American with genealogical ties to one of the founding fathers of Chile, José Miguel Carrera.[1] In 1985 Lira obtained a preparatory education at St. George's College Chile and in 1995 he graduated from Dartmouth College with a bachelors degree in history and philosophy.[2]

Lira authored three novels, Counterparts a commercial thriller published in 1997, Tomáh Errázurih a coming-of-age story published in 1998, and 'Acrobat, another commercial thriller in 2002.

In 2000, Lira was a story consultant on the video game Soldier of Fortune.[3]

Lira co-wrote, produced and directed the film Catalina’s Kidnapping, a Spanish language thriller in 2006.[4]

Starting in 2010, Lira's economic and political opinion pieces were prominently featured within blogs such as Zero Hedge,[5] Naked Capitalism,[6] Seeking Alpha, Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour, and Business Insider;[7] Lira appeared on Russia Today in January 2014 whereby he reiterated his popularly read 2010 assertion in Zerohedge that hyper-inflation would eventually cause the demise of the US dollar.[8]

I would suggest that it be reverted back to the above. As a long time Wikipedia reader, this is not a quality article as written. It detracts from the confidence I would have on the basis of neutrality and objectiveness.

I see that there was some sort of revision war here which was inappropriate. However, There are factual reasons as to why the entry on Lira needs to be revised.
I just wanted to give you a heads up that I escalated my concern to Sunray; NPOV - Request I felt it was professional to let you know. From what I can tell you have "owned" the revision history of this entry to the detriment of NPOV.
---Pundit would be an opinion. We don't have a degree in the field. We have three career chronologies. We don't have an opinion confirmed in fact, or better yet a set of them confirmed in fact. What we have are opinions with yours being just as good as his.
---You added a marketing line back regarding "eponymous" blog. " There is consensus that is not correct.. The blog in question is not named after it; it is written by him. (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC) (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
---The date range from 2010-2012 omits a follow on RT. But there is little continuity in this activity.. Date range was factually wrong. (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC) (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

---Whatever the word used "eponymous" or otherwise, out of the three people editing the Lira entry, you are the only one that thinks an entry citing a web site counter it is appropriate in this case
---You are violating consensus!
---Lira's blog is not independent - It is his blog and that lacks NPOV.
---Suggesting he is "well respected" lacks NPOV and that is the whole point. 'Put the facts forth and have the reader decide, facts being something from a quality third party
---The date range which you restored is incorrect "From 2010-12
---This mistake is easy to prove, but you think your phraseology is correct when weighed against clarity of fact
---The issue of a College being a high-school is not addressed
---We know he just has a Bachelors degree and the readers of this biography don't
---The issue of no clear vocation is not addressed, another area that needs to be decided by a reader of a NPOV entry
---I have to ask this "Are you related to Lira?" "Are you from Chile?" "Are you a gold-bug?" "Are you a libertarian?" "Do you listen to alternate news?" "Do you have a conflict of interest? If you answered yes to any question.
---Ancestry might be important to cite, just not here where it is irrelevant except to the ego of a living person.
---I would like to see this bio from an NPOV
---I am going to maintain the moral high ground thus I am not going to change the entry back.
---I don't care what you think of Lira (or what I think of him) the bio needs to be neutral
--- I will open this discussion up to others on the NPOV and other moderation (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC) (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Lira - Not too far off[edit]

Few changes need made to Lira so that it would find NPOV and these changes are not too great Suggest you consider the notes on the talk and take a step back from ownership and bias Best if you made the revisions, be a good sport

Lfrankbalm (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Minimal changes as of September 29th. Lets close this issue and concern with these changes as documented in talk.

Lfrankbalm (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Gonzalo Lira. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. The allegation that an editor with whom you have a content dispute is engaging in vandalism is a personal attack, and a serious one. Content disputes are not vandalism. If you have been in Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been in Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Moderation of dispute[edit]

Hello, I've opened the dispute for Gonzalo Lira here. I have no opinion either way on this matter. I suggest that before you make any reverts or additions on Gonzo Lira you should divest them in that discussion. WP is a medium of consensus, so any edits or reverts from here on should be discussed, each item and it's source. I hope I can help you both to come to some type of agreement.JacobiJonesJr (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My perspective on the changes that need to be made re Lira[edit]

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." [3]

As far as I am concerned the issues can be solved here

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MILH. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Gonzalo Lira.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You will find that I have outlined what changes might need to be made to the Lira biography. I welcome your response and input to the points outlined within.

Lfrankbalm (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit re lira[edit]

You must understand that neither I, nor most other editors deny anything. I have no idea who this guy is. And the purpose of Wikipedia is so I can go and find out more about him if I needed to. And If I did, I would like to know where this information came from. It's good that you added those sources, but if you're going to, you need to add them properly. Adding bare addresses creates unprofessional look to the article. Take your time, you are part of a project here-and to call my actions churlish- you need to realize that when you say that to someone who is just trying to improve wp, you may in fact cause them to become rude; people don't appreciate unnecessary comments like that.If you remember you are interacting with other human beings, you may suddenly find that editing, and life, have become easier for you.
Take care JacobiJonesJr (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to your reply[edit]

I'm sorry about that note I left, I had a dreadful day; And the word churlish doesn't sound so bad to me today as it did last night; It was the tiny dab of icing on the cake for me, and set me off. I just feel like a dolt now. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Hi MILH and welcome to WP. You are a new editor so you may not be fully aware of all of WPs policies and procedures. There are hundreds of them and it takes time to absorb them. One policy is regarding civility and personal attacks. In this edit you made a personal attack on another editor which is forbidden. So a friendly alert and request to please refrain from this kind of behavior in future when interacting with other editors. Thanks. I look forward to working together to expand and improve WP articles and the project. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 19:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

After doing a little further research I see that you have a history of personal attacks and threats including two attacks made after you were warned here on Sept 29th by User Robert McClenon. Please be careful and read WP:AGF. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Here is a listing of the personal attacks which I am referencing:

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

I have reverted your recent edit. Please do not edit war. Per the principles set out at WP:BRD please join the discussion on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Warning: Stop the personal attacks and harassment[edit]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. You are a single purpose account who refuses to engage in meaningful discussion with other editors on the Gonzalo Lira talk page. Instead you have been attacking and harassing anyone who attempts to edit the article in accordance with WP policies and guidelines. Despite repeated requests and warnings you are now focusing your attacks on me via my user talk page. Please stop the harassment and limit your posts to discussion of content on the article talk page. This is your final warning.-- KeithbobTalk 15:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And now this personal attack against me on the article talk page: Oct 19 - User Keithbob does not want to include that information. He's removed it multiple times. As to Lira being a pundit on television talk shows, there were several cited references to appearances he made. Keithbob removed them, and replaced those references with a "citation needed". Later, Keithbob removed the references to econ punditry Lira carried out, since there were "no citations". The same with Lira's econ writing, which had a significant impact in 2010–2012, but which Keithbob has (again) de-referenced and replaced with a "citation needed". My guess is, soon enough, those references to Lira's econ writing will also be eliminated.Thus Keithbob is deliberately denigrating Lira, so as to create the appearance that the subject is non-notable, and thus deserves to be removed from Wikipedia. I am unclear as to why Keithbob seems eager to vanish Lira from Wikipedia. Nevertheless, that is what he/she is doing. -- KeithbobTalk 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And another personal attack (allegations with no diffs) posted on the talk page of another user: Oct 20 - Keithbob wants to delete Lira as non-notable. He's doing it by removing the things that the man has actually and verifiably done, and by denigrating/downgrading things he's done until they're practically trivial—and hence make his entry worthy for deletion from WP. I don't know what to do—I also don't think it's fair. (I've noticed Keithbob does the same to other entries; his criteria seems to be that if he isn't aware of someone/something, then it isn't notable, and hence should be deleted from WP.) But whenever I try to roll back what he's doing, Keithbob is more aggressive in his cuts—and then attacks me. -- KeithbobTalk 02:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Gonzalo Lira for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gonzalo Lira is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Caution on 22 October[edit]

Several editors have tried to caution you about your edits. Please try to listen to them. I don't think that you want to blocked from editing as a disruptive editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)