User talk:The Eloquent Peasant

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

I don't hide or delete discussions from my talk page. I archive.


Eloquent, in this edit you removed a perfectly valid cite and replaced it with one that does not contain the information given in the article, and you ended this with the edit summary, "added ref: DTOP Transit Data; other link was not working". There are several problems with this change:

  • The valid cite, even if no longer taking you to the article cited, shouldn't have been removed. There a difference between an invalid link and a dead link; this one wasn't invalid, just dead.
  • The Annual Average Daily Transit (AADT) cite you added had nothing to do with the road that Sen. Seilhamer proposed be built. As such, your addition would had eventually been flagged "Failed verification".
  • Perhaps because it appeared to you the text didn't make sense, you further modified the body of the article by removing text here by removing even more data.

Perhaps you aren't aware, but here's how you should handle such situations in the future:

  • WP:DEADLINK: You should leave the dead link alone unless you are going to improve it (alone it carries more information than deleted altogether, which carries Zero information). To improve it, you search the History tab to find the date when the link was added (this one was added on 19:48, 4 October 2011‎ by Yours Truly) and then you go to the WayBack Machine ( and type the bad link (in this case it is in their search box. You will get one or more hits arranged chronologically of backups made to that page. You want to drill down on the hit with the first date after the date of the edit found via the History tab (first hit after 19:48, 4 October 2011). When I do that for the "El Sur a la Vista" article, I end up with 1 hit (MARCH 4, 2016) that, when I drilled down, it, unfortunately, resulted in no data. (This is very, very rare; you usually get several hits all or most of them with good data.) IAE, following this path, you can then add the WayBack machine's link (from the WayBack Machine's url for the page with data, that is), to the WP article cite with the El Sur a la Vista reference and save the updated WP page. (See here for an example of how the WayBack Machine was useful in a similar case.) As this PR-132 case cannot be resolved with the WayBack machine, it's best to leave the cite alone.
  • Please be sure to add cites that actually talk about Seilhamer's proposed new road. If you don't have a valid cite, you shouldn't post one, as it would lead the reader to believing the fact in the text has a WP:RS when in reality it doesn't.
  • Please be thoughtful about removing data that others may have spent valuable time researching, collecting and adding. For example, in this case, if you read thru carefully you might have noticed that Seilhamer was a Senator, and from that you should be able to deduce that the words "Senate" was all that was missing from the incomplete text.

Hope this helps, Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you added the dead link back, that I should not have removed. When you don't find the article in archives, try doing a Google search, if you have time. I fixed the dead link.-The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Great tip. Thanks! Unfortunately, the El Sur a la Vista, a valid cite, shouldn't be removed as it contains the necessary bibliographical info needed to verify the cite in a library. This is particularly important since we don't know if the replaced cite from La Perla del Sur is a bibliographical cite (i.e., a cite to a paper edition) that could be verified in a library. Should the new PDS cite be lost to WP:Link rot, there will be no way to WP:V the information later. Note that the Sur a la Vista (SALV) cite is a paper edition cite that will not suffer link rot and will live in perpetuity. That said, it's a good habit to enter, as well, the date when the PDS was obtained (i.e., today's date): should the link to the PDS page be removed from the web, the PDS link -- unlike the SALV link -- will no longer be usable, but an access date will help locate a copy in archiving systems like the WayBack Machine. The idea is to build an encyclopedia, not just for today, but for perpetuity. BTW, they are 2 different papers; perhaps there was some confusion on that. Thanks for finding the PDS link. tc, Mercy11 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

AFD withdrawn.[edit]

I have withdrawn my afd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your recent edits to this article. For years there had been a lot of nonsense stuff added to the article that didn't do justice to the Puerto Rican heritage. Your edits were welcomed additions. Mercy11 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

nrhp tools[edit]

Hi, do u know about the "NRHP infobox generator"? It provides a copy=paste-ready filled-out draft infobox/article with some more stuff than u can find easily. e.g. this for Hacienda de Carlos Vassallo includes pretty good draft NRHP reference including link to photos.[1]


  1. ^ "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Hacienda de Carlos Vassallo". National Park Service. Retrieved June 1, 2019. With accompanying pictures

Actually the NRHP site fails for me temporarily so I can't fully check it, should be okay later, I assume it will link properly to text doc and to photos. It still needs further customizing to add author, date of prep, and perhaps to make corrections, but it is a help. See wp:NRHPHELP for more. Either way, thanks for your recent nrhp contribution(s)! --Doncram (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thnks. I was pretty happy to see photos of the Hacienda de Carlos Vassallo from the link in the External links of the page. It worked before, just about an hour ago. And your welcome! I had so much fun visiting those places. The crazy thing is many times, people in the neighborhood of the historic location don't know why it's historic. Many of these places I went to didn't have a plaque or anything indicating it was a historic site.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ok good :) further customized version[1]


Doncram (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks much! I used it in the article. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Much later: Maybe I should have said then, that I found it odd you copied the new reference in, without removing the less-adequate references. --Doncram (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Hi, i notice you've created more good articles, and you mention in edit summaries that you are using "the tool" or whatever, but then your article does not include the reference supplied by the tool. Maybe you don't quite see all that the tool does yet? E.g., for new article Villa Julita, the tool supplies the following (after the infobox, and after some warning-type text that has to be deleted): Optional reference text: <ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=86003491}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Villa Julita |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=July 6, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=86003491|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>

Which would produce reference as follows:[1]


Which is, in my humble opinion, better than the version of reference the article now includes:[1]


  1. ^ "Villa Julita" (PDF). National Parks. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Retrieved 6 July 2019.

I don't know how difficult or easy it is for you to construct that, but perhaps it is harder than copy-pasting the tool's reference. And the tool version includes the link to accompanying photos, and it is set up to be further improved by adding author name and date of preparation (both to be obtained from the NRHP document's Section 11, and used to fill out the "author=" field and the "date=" field). Author and date and photos which are part of the submission are very important, IMHO! --Doncram (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, in the infobox, you apparently stripped out the reference to the NRIS database, which is in fact the source of the all the infobox data including reference number and NRHP listing date, and you substitute instead a bare-url link to the NRHP document.[1] It's a poor version of your "NRHP_Nomination_Form" reference, linking to exactly the same NRHP nomination document, so why construct that instead of using the other one? And, the NRHP nomination document usually cannot serve as a source for the NRHP listing date, because nomination is before listing, and it usually does not provide the reference number which is assigned at the listing date. Sometimes/rarely the date and reference number are stamped upon the form, but not for Villa Julita. So I think it would be better to keep the NRIS database reference.[2]


Just a quick response... cause I have to have a snack and get to bed. The ref created in the infobox gives me a message, from any device that I use, that my connection is not safe and hackers are trying to attack, etc. Something to that effect. Do you not get a message when you go the ref created in the infobox? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, wow, that is very unexpected and valuable as a response! Hmm, i vaguely do recall getting such messages, but then I changed things on my computers (explicitly accepted the "risky" internet domain or whatever, somehow) and I no longer do, not at all. Please don't change anything at all in your system, have a good night. I would really like to explore what is going on for you a bit more, if you don't mind. Perhaps leading to me updating the advice to NRHP editors at wp:NRHPHELP. But perhaps leading me to give feedback / make request to the technical people at the National Park Service to make a technical change on their end. Right now I am suspecting that all the readers of NRHP articles in wikipedia who click on the one version of the references are getting scary messages like you do, and I also believe the National Park Service could fix that (changing something in their special "alias"ing of links, which they set up for us, so that all the wikipedia articles' links wouldn't break, when they moved all their files to a different naming system a year or two ago). I am tired and can't think this through, can't even ask you the right questions. Have a good night! --Doncram (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
the scary error message, captured by The Eloquent Peasant
@Doncram: I'm glad you're addressing this. The message is not that hackers are attacking, but that they may. Still, it's not a nice message to get. Also, to my delight, I noticed that when I added a ref, for example to Callejones Site then did the "Fix dead links" from the History view, it made an archive of the .pdf file. "1 capture" .. So, I think we should always add these .pdfs to archives- you know, for when the URL / LINK gets moved... which is an inevitable event.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

These are perhaps quibbles that aren't all-important; it is most important that you are producing good articles. But it looks to me like you are engaging in unnecessary work to produce references that are not as good as served up by the tool. Any way you want to work is okay by me though. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuing on...and I hope you don't mind me filling up your Talk page...

───────────────────────── I got someone I know (who never uses/edits Wikipedia so just like most regular readers/users), to let me use their computer to see what horrible message appears:

Your connection is not private
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from 
(for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more

and then there is option to

Help improve Safe Browsing by sending some system information and page content to Google. Privacy policy

and then there are two buttons, "Advanced" and "Back to safety". While that error message is up, the URL showing is "https" in red with a strikethrough, followed by "". Hmm, does one get the same bad result when clicking upon variations variation with http: included (c-2) and variation with https: included (c-3) ?

Are my friend's results for a-1, a-2, b-1, b-2, b-3, b-4, c-1 exactly the same as what you get, i.e. there is only issue with the last one? (And probably the same bad result for c-2 and c-3?) If so, this might be easily fixed within template:NRISref or it may require fixing by the National Park Service staff. But first, are these results exactly what you get? (Again sorry if this is too much, i could move this all to somewhere else if you are not liking this.) --Doncram (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then if it's just me I will go ahead and use the reference as formatted/created by the tool. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
No, hey, I am sure it is not just you! My friend's computer shows problem too. Are ur results the same, exactly? --Doncram (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
HEY...sorry about all the above, that is too much probably. I see all I need from your explanation already, and in particular from your edit at the Callejones Site page in which you remove the NRISref link. I have enough now, and will address elsewhere. It is a big/important problem because that NRISref appears in 50,000 or so articles, and is doing that for almost all Wikipedia readers. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. It's no problem at all. I like to "talk" on my talk page and I like working with you and others on this project. Good luck!--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, good, whew! By the way I am encountering, in my account and on my computer, the same error message for a wp:MPS "Multiple Property Submission" document at (from Hotel Cortez (El Paso, Texas) article). It further says "This server could not prove that it is; its security certificate is from * This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection." and gives me the option to "Proceed to (unsafe)". --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Latin music invitation[edit]

Violin Folclórico.jpg Please accept this invite to join the WikiProject Latin music, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to music in Spanish and Portuguese from Latin America, Spain, Portugal, and the United States. Simply click here to accept! Or, if you're interested in reading more on Latin music, you may want to check out the Latin music portal.

Erick (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I've been updating Latin music articles. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"Word order in English"[edit]

Hey, hope everything is going well, and thanks again for your great, extensive, dedicated, and meticulous PR edits. This one here, however, I would disagree with. The reason is that, following that argument ("word order in English") then we would have to say, for example, Ponce de Leon Avenida, instead of the current Ponce de Leon Avenue. There are dozens (I would dare say 100s) of other examples, both related and not related to barrios and streets/avenues (as well as 100s of examples related to many other non-PR, Spanish, articles in Englich WP as well), but I won't list them here because I am sure you know of many of them already anyway. And, while my example is about article titles, the fact is that by extension the same can be said of prose within articles. IAE, I am not making war over it, just pointing out my opinion in hopes that I can better understand --your-- overall rationale in this sort of cases. Again, it's a minor case, but it could open the proverbial "can of worms". BTW, I have seen your edits and you are very methodical and structured in your work. I am that way too (most of the time anyway) and I know a lot of folks don't appreciate the value of such MO (sometimes shouting "perfectionist" at me) but, like you, I feel is the best way to deliver quality work. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. IMO, I don't think it's a can of worms if we just stick to the situation with "barrio". I based my opinion on how the names of places are shown on U.S. Census documents. In states where the place is called a "township", the census docs shows the place name followed by the word "township". The U.S. Census for P.R. shows the place name followed by the word "barrio". In Spanish it's Barrio Mamey. In English it's Mamey barrio. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Eloquent, for article titles (and I emphasize, it's for article titles! [not prose]), the MOS rule is to use the most often used form in the English language literature, not in a single doc, like the U.S. Census. Census folks aren't linguistics professional, so I would think that wouldn't be a most favored choice for guidance in these matters, IMO. But it's good to know what your basis was. As for the Mamey example, I would disagree. In English it wouldn't be Mamey barrio, but Mamey ward instead. Wouldn't it? This follows from examples like, in Spanish we use write Rio Portugues, but in English it would be Portugues River (not Portugues Rio), no? Mercy11 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not following all of this, and don't have an overall opinion on whatever this is about, but one small point can be made: if there is an article with one version of title (e.g. Ponce de Leon Avenue, a bluelink) then it is possible/easy/good to create a redirect from the other version of title (e.g. Ponce de Leon Avenida, currently a redlink). Also possibly there could/should be a redirect from any version having an accent in Spanish, e.g. if there could be an accent aigu(?) over the "e" in "Leon", say). It is often said that "redirects are cheap" and should be used more often. If there are redirects, then consistency of usage for one term vs. other versions is less of an issue. Anyhow, I am glad you both are concerned and involved! --Doncram (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

La muñeca menor and Atya lanipes[edit]

Hi Eloquent. Please take a look at the discussion here. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

PR municipality articles' coverage of landmarks, and links[edit]

Hi, i am happy to notice your recent contributions to Guanica, Puerto Rico and to Sabana Grande, Puerto Rico, and perhaps there are more, where you have been adding coverage of landmarks, including about some NRHP-listed places. As well as, I see, developing about some kind of "special communities" that I don't happen to know about, but that seems good too.

(BTW, Special Communities is something the gov't of P.R. has put in place to address the poverty ---it seems to be an ongoing initiative and that's why I included it.) P.R. is pushing tourism now and listing the names of places that may be "marginalized" can help a tourist avoid a place that may be dangerous. I read once that certain maps of Puerto Rico avoided showing the location of "La Perla" for that very reason.
Ah, i just went to the Perla article, and immediately wondered if it was the scene of Despacito video, and it is! I would want to visit there if I visited San Juan. :) --Doncram (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
My mom went there to La Perla to do mission work. I mean, people do leave La Perla alive. I hope the artists, with their music, can be a good influence on the youth. Carjackings happen- I think 30 this year, so far. These kids don't know that they'll do 15 years in prison for a car-jacking. Still, it's a lovely, fun place to enjoy sunshine, good weather, great food, friendly, easy people and don't forget to wear sunblock It's a little island, mountainous, but it's packed- full of really nice people, (with the caveat on "take measures to stay safe")...Definitely, Puerto Rico is a cultural phenomenon, just again, don't forget the sunblock.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

For NRHPs in the 50 U.S. states, which are organized mostly in lists by county, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in San Miguel County, New Mexico (whose articles I have been developing recently), someone or several people went through all the corresponding county articles, e.g. San Miguel County, New Mexico, to add a "see also" type link to the NRHP list. And for many county and town articles there are lists of landmarks included, including links to all the NRHPs in the given town. In PR with no counties, the NRHP lists are organized by municipality (i.e. one table per municipality, although multiple muni tables may be included in one page like National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico). But my impression is that the PR municipality articles have not been edited that way, i.e. they mostly do not include lists of landmarks yet. A smaller point is that certainly there should be a link to the corresponding table, for each one. So, for Guánica, Puerto Rico, could you add a "See also" link to National Register of Historic Places listings in Guánica, Puerto Rico (which should link to its table in the western Puerto Rico NRHP page)?

Hey, I will go ahead and put in a "See also" type for all the PR municipality articles, e.g. like this edit just now. So never mind about this smaller point. This is separate from what you do about listing landmarks in each municipality. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the NRHP articles to the See also section! I'll be on the lookout for more NRHP articles to link to the PR articles.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, when you do refer to a NRHP-listed place, I notice you haven't always linked to its intended article location. Maybe you have only been linking to existing articles, and have preferred not to link to redlinks? I myself would prefer for redlinks to be included as links, wherever the landmark is in fact showing as a redlink in an NRHP list. Because we can assume that documents are available, and that an article can/will be created in future, and I think it is good to show readers/editors the redlink and encourage them to go ahead and create it. Like, in the Guanica article, you could include a link to James Garfield Graded School (currently a redlink). That is my preference; I know others think and do differently. Again I am overall mostly just glad to see you developing stuff, any way you see fit. :)

I haven't developed the "landmarks" section of articles very much but it's on my list of things to do and I often check the NRHP article to find places to add to "landmarks and places of interest". I also read the municipalities page on the Puerto Rico encyclopedia. YES, I prefer to link to red links as well. :)

About one specific item, in the Sabana Grand article, you added substantial content about: "Masonic Cemetery, Cementerio Masónico de Ia Resp. Logia Igualdad Num. 23 de Sabana Grande, is of countrywide significance under Criterion A in the area of Social History as the property is associated with a very important pattern of social and political events that took place during the nineteenth century in Puerto Rico. The construction of the cemetery came out as a result of the struggles among the Spanish political establishment and its ideological partner, the Roman Catholic Church, against the presence of the philosophical brotherhood commonly known as the Freemasons."[1]


  1. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-03-20. Retrieved 2014-03-20. Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Hmm, that is intelligent/substantial content, and it looks to me that the place must be NRHP-listed, although I think there is not yet a separate article for it, so i would think it should be wikilinked and show as a redlink. But National Register of Historic Places listings in western Puerto Rico#Sabana_Grande does not include mention of such a place. Actually there is article at Sabana Grande Masonic Cemetery, with redirect also from Cementerio Masónico de la Resp. Logia Igualdad Núm. 23 de Sabana Grande. So I think your mention in the Sabana Grand article should wikilink to that. And further, your content goes beyond what is in the separate article, so it should be added there too. Again, thank you for your work, and again any way you like to proceed is fine and helps. My suggestion is just about building in more connections sooner, if you like. :) --Doncram (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank youuuuu very much. Great work! I have to do a lot more cross-referencing (wikilinking) and thought to work on one municipality per week, but then was never able to be that methodical. Just trying to fill in any missing info, refs, more connections is what I want too.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Callejones Site[edit]

Also, since we're talking. I realized yesterday that I made a mistake. The Lares "callejones site" .pdf is here is not what I photographed. I'll be removing the

definitely not an image of Callejones Site because this is in Lares barrio-pueblo, not in Callejones Barrio

off the NRHP page and update the image description. I apologize for that. The article doesn't yet exist but there's enough info here to make an article.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram: I'll probably also have to rename the image so that it doesn't propagate errors. (from Callejones Site, Lares, Puerto Rico.jpg to something else)... Callejones is a barrio in Lares, Puerto Rico however, "callejon" is like a hole, gap, or alley and when I was walking over the bridge in Lares and looked down to my right and saw the location it definitely resembled a hole or gap... and it looked "archaeological " so I assumed it was the Callejones Site listed on the NRHP, but yesterday I found the .pdf linked above and that document definitely doesn't describe that picture. Plus "Callejones Site" should be in Callejones barrio based on the docs from NRHP. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's more info on these Caribbean ball court sites and the Callejones Site in Lares is mentioned on page 28. There's also a 95 page color document I found on by Irving Rouse, of Yale University, the researcher. His document on Academia is called "OLiver JR and J. Rivera Fontan 2007 Bate.pdf" .. If I thought I could do it justice I'd write it but if you want to try it, please be my guest.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doncram: I just checked your stats. Jesus, Mary, Joseph! You've done a lot of articles! :P --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Ernesto Memorial Chapel) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Ernesto Memorial Chapel.

User:Blythwood while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

I've linked to a pre-existing Wikimedia Commons category on the building created in 2015, and linked to the Craftsman style article. Unfortunately, the NRHP records for this building have not been digitised, so citation 3 doesn't work for now. I've put citation 2 in relevant places to cover this. Hope that makes sense!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Blythwood (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Blythwood: Thank you so much! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Piña colada[edit]

Hi nice to see you again ~ ~ well ~~ you know is a territory ~~ WP:LOL ~mitch~ (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see you too. President Trump seems to think it's a country.WP:LOL [1] --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

wow what an idiot

WP:LOL I wrote him and the senators from Arizona and Maryland and told them they should make it a state {last year}.

  • Thanks for the finishing touch ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
OMG! Then we'd have to update the flag, we'd have a new poorest state of the nation and ... I guess that'd be it? We'd still speak Spanish. Maybe Puerto Rico would be ceded back to Spain? There was fake news about that last year. I hope it continues to become a good cultural destination.[2] But, state or independent or territory, we'll still be a little island in the middle of the Caribbean prone to getting hit by huge hurricanes. The flag with 51 stars: [3] --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
well since you mentioned it I actually though of the US Virgin Islands as the 52nd state ~ at least thats what I told them ~~ I wonder how many stars we can put on that flag ~ it's time for a change anyways ~ got to give the next generation something to think about ~ hell we did with Alaska and Hawaii ~ why not on the other side of the Continent ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I was there in the eighties ~ San Juan is a beautiful place ~ the people were so kind to me ~ Rrnn ~mitch~ (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


~ new section ~[edit]

Hey Peasant ~ WP:LOL ~ I edited on Valereee's page ~ would you check the edit please ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

~ Waterloo, Texas ~[edit]

This reminds me of your 'new' first sentence on your user page ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't hurt my chupacabras. There's a speekuzslmn--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
What a cool sounding teacher ~mitch~ (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions[edit]

Hello Eloquent Peasant. I am confused: What criteria are you using for assigning "American" or "Puerto Rican" in the short descriptions? For example here you added short description = "American politician" for Sila Calderon, who was born in PR and is best known for what she did while in PR. On the other hand, here you added short description = "Puerto Rican politician" for Roberto Sanchez Vilella, who was also born in PR and is best known for what he did while in PR. Mercy11

Hi! That was a mistake. I'm using the tool for importing short descriptions. The tool already offers a short description. If a person was born in Puerto Rico, what I do is replace what's offered by the tool, usually (American politician) with Puerto Rican politician. I missed that one- Sila María González Calderón - but I have since corrected it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There are other instances of such edits that also illustrates this --seeming-- ambivalence. What criteria are you following for determining whether the person is American or Puerto Rican? I am not coming to you with the eternal "Well, Puerto Ricans are US citizens" argument; I am not interested in that, nor in knowing your political inclinations. I am interested in consistence. I am missing something or a number of such edits are inconsistent with the rationale used in other similar edits. Mercy11

Oh no, no, no. There is no ambivalence at all. If a person was born in Puerto Rico I state Puerto Rican in the short description.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, here, and in a number of other cases, you changed the national identity (or whatever, you might call it...I don't wanna offend anyone...) of Juan R. Torruella from one to the other (in this case from American to Puerto Rican). Again, it's not clear why. Mercy11

I changed it because after mistakenly importing what was offered by the short description tool, which is populated with what is in the Wikidata item. I went back and corrected it because he was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Sorry, I have 20 windows open and going back and forth. I look at what short description tool offers, I import or have to open the Wikidata item, update there and return to the wikipedia article, to import it, because I don't want it to say one thing on the article and a different thing on the wikidata item. Sometimes I make a mistake and that is why it was first American judge, then Puerto Rican judge or whatever the case, i.e. American politician or Puerto Rican politician. A lot of the text offered from the Wikidata Item is good and immedialy acceptable, others need to be updated. "A town in Africa" would have to be updated before importing it using the short description tool because there are lots of countries in Africa. See WP:Short Desc for more info on this project. But something like all almost 9 billion English articles need to have a short descrption added to them. Would you like to join in on the fun? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's an interesting case (Jose Campeche), in that you described him as an "American artist" but Marine 69-71 then corrected it to "Spanish artist". I say "interesting" because this, then, brings up various challenging issues: for example, if a person was born under Spanish flag but dies (unlike Campeche) under American flag, how should he be described (especially in cases where the contributions the person is known for were made under both Spanish and American flags)? Mercy11

I don't know about this. But, if there is an argument over his nationality then the short description should not include it. You can see the WP Short Descriptions project where people have asked about criteria for short descriptions. In summary, you have to try to be brief... Regarding the (first) person to circumnavigate the earth, Juan Sebastián Elcano, there was an issue. When I imported the "short description" which stated that he was the first, it was changed by another editor to "Spanish seafarer and circumnavigator" (something factual) ... the editor who changed it, removing the word first stated in the summary note, and I quote him and he quotes, ""Avoid anything that is, or could reasonably be construed as, controversial or judgemental."" So, that makes perfect sense. The short description is what people see when they search wikipedia on a mobile phone, so it should be short. The nationality of a person born in Puerto Rico, however, is not controversial. It's a fact.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying all this. Mercy11 (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Application Form for Certificate of Puerto Rican Citizenship
  • I would like to express my humble opinion on the issue. I believe that the correct term that should be used to describe the nationality of a person born in Puerto Rico even under the American flag should be "Puerto Rican". This is taking into consideration that there is a "Puerto Rican citizenship". According to the article which is well referenced "Puerto Rican citizenship was first legislated by the United States Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act of 1900 and later recognized in the Constitution of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican citizenship existed before the U.S. takeover of the islands of Puerto Rico and continued afterwards. Its affirmative standing was also recognized before and after the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952. Puerto Rican citizenship was recognized by the United States Congress in the early twentieth century and continues unchanged after the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
I didn't know this. Thank you so much for showing that image. I knew that we have dual citizenship and that some people have relinquished their US citizenship. But I'd never seen an actual application for Puerto Rican citizenship. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that the "American Citizenship" which was "granted" to the native Puerto Ricans is a limited citizenship which can be revoked at anytime. This is due to the fact that in order for that "citizenship" to be permanent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution has to be made. That means that every native born Puerto Rican does not have a true and complete American citizenship, but does have a Puerto Rican Citizenship, therefore the answer to the question in regard to the nationality of a person born in Puerto Rico, if he or she is an American or a Puerto Rican, should be in my opinion "Puerto Rican". Tony the Marine (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful information! And you explained it on Ivonne Coll also. I linked it here so it's easy for me to find... Thanks again.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • You are welcome and let me tell you Eloquent Peasant, you are a wonderful contributor and it makes me very happy every-time I see your edits. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you. (La Jibara Elocuente)
  • For everyone's info, this talk page thread is very difficult to follow. Per WP Talk Page standards, "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." (See WP:TPO)
Sorry but even if there was no WP standard on this, seems to me just plain common sense not to interleave one's comments within someone else's. This was not a good idea and in my years editing in WP, I had never experienced it (or seen it done to someone else's comments for that matter). Whatever is being discussed here, I am sorry, but I will no longer participate. As for my initial concern, per WP:BOLD, I am just correcting the hundreds of cases I have seen so far. Like my dear of old grandmother used to say, "El que much abarca, poco aprieta". Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
We'll leave it at that.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mercy11: I wanted to get back to you on this. 1) the comments interweaving is definitely crazy. I fixed it. I'm known for that. 2) Refranes: Have you seen these, close to 500 Puerto Rican refranes? I've heard many of them. - Wouldn't it be great to add an image to each? That's a project that comes to mind. But wait. El que mucho abarco, poco aprieta. Now I know what that means! And like my grandmother still says, 'cause God bless her, she still lives, El que no tiene dinga, tiene mandinga. I know, I know. it's not applicable to this conversation but I like it. When my parents spewed those refranes, I was too young to understand most of them except for those that were easy to understand like Ya los pájaros le tiran a la escopeta. 3) I saw you removed a Spanish idiom from the Pedro Rosselló article, which makes perfect sense because it's inappropriate to add a Spanish idiom to an English Wikipedia article but I did add it to the Pedro Rosselló Spanish article. Have a good day.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It's all good. thanks for the comments. Mercy11 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Comunidades en Puerto Rico[edit]

Hi Eloquent Peasant. I came across this and thought it might be of interest to you if you hadn't seen it already. Mercy11 (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Mercy11:, I saw it and created this en.wp article where it's covered: Puerto Rico Office for Socioeconomic and Community Development - I also received copies of the pages of the book by Rivera Quintero, Marcia (2014),called El vuelo de la esperanza : Proyecto de las Comunidades Especiales Puerto Rico, 1997-2004 when I emailed them asking for more information about Special Communities. The information in the book, for the most part, matches the information on the website you shared here. What do you think? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Your article is great! tc Mercy11 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"cuenta con" and "counts with"[edit]

Hi. I wasn't the one who wrote that section, I only organized the different dean offices into subsections because it's previous format was confusing. Jay Starz (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. Awesome. :) Just that I teach basic English to Spanish speakers (and basic Spanish to English speakers) and that one translation always bugs me. The phrasal verb or expression cuenta con is not "counts with".--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


Orangestarsultra.jpg Thanks
~ Nice footage ~ thanks ~ (sorry about the death) ); ~mitch~ (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! These hurricanes are maddening! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eloquent Peasant ~ on my edit here "The other station I could care less about" does not include your work ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: Hey, no problem. I'm easy. At least that is what my husband always says.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)