User talk:Polaris999

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end for name, time and date.
Unsigned messages will be marked with an {{unsigned}} after them or removed.
Start a new talk topic.

Talk (archived)

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Contents

Che, again

Thanks for your continuing great work as an expert and moderator. It's nice to come back to such an inherently controversial article after nearly three months and see that it has not degenerated into a battlefield. - Jmabel | Talk 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jmabel -- Many thanks for the very kind words. "La ausencia de su presencia" was deeply felt while you were away, and it is great to have you back. While perhaps not a battlefield, the CG article has certainly been the scene of on-going skirmishes, and things got especially wild after it was TFA on 18 June. Right now there is something of a hiatus, but I have been warned that the intensity may be expected to return to the previous levels when the summer vacation period ends. -- Polaris999 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba-Soviet relations

Hi Polaris, if you have a moment, would you mind scanning the early section of Cuba-Soviet relations which is a rough article I have hastily created. It needs reference to Guevara's trips to the Soviet Union in the early 60's, which played a key part in solidifying the relationship. Guevara's subsequent ideological shifts were also partly responsible for a cooling of relations between all parties - so he has a major role there. As you have worked so hard on the Guevara page I wondered if you had anything in your scrapbook that would slot in easily? Other than that it's a lonely article at the moment and needs some scanning and input. Thanks.--Zleitzen 01:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zleitzen, thank you very much for the invitation to take a look at your new article re Cuba-Soviet relations and Guevara's role in their evolution. This is a subject that interests me greatly and one that I feel has never been adequately addressed in any of the books or articles I have read. I will be very interested to see what you have written and ascertain whether I might have any sources that could provide additional information for you. I am not even going to peek at the article tonight, however, as I prefer to give it my full -- and fresh -- attention first thing tomorrow, so will be in touch then. -- Polaris999 05:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I did look at the article and have a few ideas about quotations by Guevara concerning Cuba-USSR relations that I would like to pass on to you. Unfortunately, this information is only stored in my head because I never intended to write in detail about this particular topic; I will therefore need to look through a number of books in order to give you his exact words and the sources. When I have done this, I will post the results on your Talk page. -- Polaris999 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polaris, by the way I think the Guevara page is excellant. It's a relief to look at in comparison to the hideous Castro page which is a dead loss at the moment. --Zleitzen 09:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

File:SoleteRayos.gif

Esta sonrisa está para es aclarar su día.--Dakota 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re-work

Hi, I know you created that template but I think it should still be 'archived'. The template name itself is misleading also it is not used (check what links here) or publicised to editors. We currently have 300+ cleanup templates which is way too many and I am trying to condense them down to fewer more commonly used ones by archiving unused templates and ones that are covered by others.

In this case I dont see a place where I would use it as a tag and it is very very infrequently used so I archived it. Do you have any firm evidence that it is an essential and useful temlate? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Things can depreciate besides currency. see dictionary definition ;)

Hi, I created that template for a specific purpose and have used it many times in various articles for that purpose. I especially like the fact that it makes it easy to "time stamp" a sentence, paragraph, or section that needs re-work. I really don't care what you do with it so long as it is still available for me to use. Re the word "depreciate", the dictionary reference you cite stresses the difference between "depreciate" and "deprecate". There is no reason to think that this or any other template has "depreciated" which would mean that it has diminished in value over time, i.e. that it is worth less now than when it was when it was originally created. Is this really what you are suggesting? If so, what process(es) would cause such a phenomenon to occur? Concerning your statement that its name is misleading, I do not understand your point as its name ("Re-work") indicates exactly what the template requests be done and every time I have used it the desired effect has been achieved. -- Polaris999 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for CG

In general, officially, page protection is not a very good idea. That's officially speaking; we all know that 90% of the damage is caused, sometimes unknowingly, by anonymous users and/or new users. In this case, page protection is not warranted, since there's no edit war or massive vandalism going on, no content dispute, no widespread disruption. It's just a newbie that probably doesn't understand why his text was removed twice, and the usual touch-and-go anon Guevara bashers. In this case you have to assume good faith and warn the editors as appropriate (see User talk:Gabrielfoto for example). I'll monitor the page a bit more closely. You and the other "established editors" of the page should be alert, especially, to spot strings of minor changes (which cover the previous ones' track in watchlist display), and to revert harmful changes quickly before someone else adds good content (which deprives you of the chance to do a quick revert, lest you lose that good content). If the situation gets out of control, by all means let me know. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply, Pablo D. Flores. It is semi-protection that I was hoping for. A couple of nights ago something extremely disgusting was done to the CG article. The identical thing was done to the FCR article at approximately the same time and it immediately got semi-protection. There seems to be some bias against giving semi-protection to the CG article, which I do not understand. It seems to me that right now what has been going on all day today with someone repeatedly inserting garbage re "carnicero" etc. is either edit warring or vandalism (personally I would say the latter) and that it needs to be brought under control; but, just my humble opinion, and I will leave the matter to your discretion ... -- Polaris999 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che

Thanks very much for the help with quotes for the Cuba-Soviet relations article. I'll gather together what I've got adding your Che based material and will hopefully begin creating a good article. My "dream" is that all Cuban related material will be so solid on wikipedia that disputes will fade, this seems to be happening already.

Regarding protection for the CG page, the best way to protect a page is to make the writing and sourcing so tight that partisans are simply unable to destabilise it for any sustained period. The CG page is a good example of this and also has a number of good editors monitoring the page, so improvement is almost inevitable despite the occasional setback. --Zleitzen 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaris, I've been watching the Che article for a month or so and I feel that my theory above still stands. The article, which is a universe ahead of any other article concerned with Cuba/Cuban revolution, has become so refined that I imagine it is extremely difficult to dispute or destabilize and hasn't been since I've watched it. It should be a model for all pages, notably those which deal with disputed or controversial subjects. I checked the history and development of the article from way back and saw the inevitable POV tags which hovered over the article for some time. It is a long time since someone saw fit to impose them on the article which is astounding progress in my view. Congratulations and well done for all your hard work. Presently I'm sifting through various key texts on the history of Cuba I have to hand, and am painstakingly trying to apply them to 200 or so articles on my watchlist. Eventually I'll get round to reading the Guevara specific books, but there is little opportunity for me to improve the Guevara main article thanks to its present high standard. He's also a figure that has always grated on me I'm afraid - in the last hour we have encountered two t-shirts carrying the Korda image whilst simply picking up groceries, making me grumble under my breath! Saying that I now have Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution on my watch, and will see how that improves over time with various inputs (hopefully including my own). Anyway, well done again. Great work.--Zleitzen 17:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zleitzen. Thank you very much for the extremely kind words, which I greatly appreciate! As you say, the Che article seems to have reached a certain stability during the past few weeks after 14+ months of intense development. I agree with you that careful sourcing has contributed to this, and I think that, as you indicated previously, another factor is that a number of editors have put the article on their watch lists and quickly revert any vandalism that occurs. I am concerned that the Legacy section of the article continues to be weak. It is hard to work on because it is the one that generates the most POV activity. Perhaps after the "stable version" concept is introduced on en.wikipedia it will be possible to begin to do some serious work on it. In the meantime, I shall look forward to seeing your contributions over at Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution, and wish you the best of luck on your ambitious project of improving the 200+ Cuba-related articles. Thanks again! -- Polaris999 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uncovered an article that I haven't read before : Escopeteros with a section written by El Jigue and almost untouched by other human hands. I feel like an explorer discovering the last of a rare specious. My favourite of all time was Women in Cuba which I deeply regretted having to clean up to save from extinction as it was marvellous. The talk page responses from random editors still make me smile on re-reading.--Zleitzen 01:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zleitzen, and many thanks for bringing the Escopeteros article to my attention; I enjoyed reading it and look forward to reading the "unredacted" version of Women in Cuba later tonight. I believe that EJ is quite an expert on the Escopeteros (think he said that his upcoming book is on that topic) which is a subject about which I know absolutely nothing. It may be true that the reason Camilo and Che passed through the territory stretching from the Sierra Maestra to old Las Villas province so easily was that the way had been cleared for them by these outlaws — it certainly seemed that they had something of a "cake walk" over much of their trajectory. Nevertheless, we definitely need sources for these statements if they are to remain in the article. EJ still doesn't seem to have accepted the fact that his saying "I was there" or "My friend saw it" is worth absolutely nothing so far as Wikipedia is concerned. At least, once his book is published, I guess that Wikipedia's rules will allow him to cite it as a source, so he will finally be able to use himself as a reference which will no doubt make him very happy indeed. -- Polaris999 02:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tinyspkricon.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tinyspkricon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. YellowDot 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]