User talk:Zoraida

Welcome!

Hello, Zoraida, 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:Where to ask a question, 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!--RWR8189 11:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on DU[edit]

Urging that the article on Democratic Underground be deleted is pretty clearly frivolous. It appears that you're doing so in reaction to the deletion of the paragraph you wrote about PI. What, if anything, the DU article should say about PI is a separate issue and can be worked out at Talk:Democratic Underground. It's not a basis for deleting the article. Please see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, a guideline that's directly applicable here. JamesMLane t c 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Actually, I see now that the point you're making isn't about the paragraph in the DU article, but about the AfD on Progressive Independent. It's still a point-making exercise. My advice to you, based on two years' experience here, is that the immediate withdrawal of your AfD on the DU article would improve the chances for the retention of the PI article. Also, the PI article as it now stands doesn't come close to being NPOV; its chances of survival would be greatly aided by a rewrite to make it neutral. JamesMLane t c 12:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I don't know you[edit]

The minute we made an edit to the OPEN article at DU, you launched a frivolous and childish attack.

Progressive Independent was formed by some very well-respected ex DUers and has been extremely successful so what's your problem with a mention of that FACT on the Democratic Underground page? I have half a mind to e-mail the Admin of that forum and urge them to reopen the DU Recovery Room because these underhanded tactics here and elsewhere should be exposed.

You slap an AfD on PI and then act surprised? This is really unbelievabe.

Removal of AfD Tag[edit]

The removal of an AfD tag on Progressive Independent while a discussion is ongoing is considered Vandalism. Please avoid this in the future.-RWR8189 13:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the removal of an AfD tag on Democratic Undergound while a discussion is ongoing[edit]

isn't considered Vandalism?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoraida (talk • contribs) .

The tag you placed on the Democratic Underground article was frivolous and without reason, and is an example of Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point--RWR8189 13:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pettiness?[edit]

Thanks for your kind comment. Frankly, though, I don't think what you're seeing here is pettiness. Many Wikipedians try to apply general standards regardless of their own personal views. I have nothing against PI -- I voted for Kucinich in the primary, and it seems he's one of the few Dems that PI people like -- but there's an objective difference in notability between DU and PI. (An attempt to delete the article on Free Republic would be just as bad as deleting Democratic Underground, though I certainly have no love for the Freepers.)

There are many places on Wikipedia where progressives can make a big contribution, if they're willing to work within this project's constraints. Here's an example: I edited the Demopedia article on George W. Bush to include facts about his deficits, along with this comment: "In order to mask the catastrophic long-term effects of Bush's tax cuts, he proposed them as nominally temporary, and they were enacted in that form. He was never sincere in that position, however. He has since expressed the hope that they will be made permanent." [1] That comment would be completely inappropriate on Wikipedia, though, as a violation of the Neutral Point of View policy. My edit to the George W. Bush article here just gave the facts. Until I made that edit, though, Wikipedia's Bush article didn't even mention his disastrous fiscal policy. I restrained myself from expressing my opinion, and so was able to add an important fact. Many PI participants probably have a lot of similar information that they could contribute to Wikipedia. They'd have to write neutrally and factually, and cite their sources. They'd also have to learn to cope with what we call "POV warriors", i.e. the people who ignore these requirements to push their point of view. If some PI people are interested in Wikipedia, try to recruit them for helping out. JamesMLane t c 05:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pilogo.jpg)[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pilogo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]