User talk:Iago Dali

Welcome

Hello Iago Dali, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. As a newbie I suggest you look around and learn more about WP before deciding if you are being mistreated. There are many rules, but they can be changed if they are incorrect, you just have to go about it the right way. I don't know what your particular problem is, but I am currently not accepting cases to Advocate, you need to look on the page of advocates that are currently accepting cases and discuss your problem with them. Please be specific about the problem, don't ask an advocate to figure out what your problem is, as they probably don't have time to do that. Good luck and enjoy WP. — © Alex756 15:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just go and check out the dispute resolution process you should be able to figure things out. — © Alex756 22:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be late, but on which page was there a dispute? I'll see what I can do there. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Disputes== (cross posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Voldemort)

I basically have two disputes of a differing nature. The 1st wd be on the novel talk page. I just think that the links to novels are ungodly long and have suggested a number of options, mainly due to the fact that some of the cited links are not to novels, novel precursors, some were written in verse- including a verse novel, and there is, to me, some manifest biases for certain ethnic groups. Aside from that there are over 101 links and growing. How can I try to get a quorum to simply make this better, more concise, etc? Looking around on Wiki I find some abominable entries- either in terms of redundant phrasing, grammar, punctuation, but even more in some flat out wrong factual areas, such as... This is dispute #2. I came across it in the cat entry 1st- the redundancy of stating that an urban legend was untrue. I then saw that the urban legend entry stated there could be true urban legends so went to the snopes.com website and pasted in its contradictory definition- which logically says that UL's, like any legend, cannot be true, by definition. It's ill worded but you can sort it out. In short, if a hallmark of a UL is that it has had information altered or distorted it is by definition not true. Logic dictates that one impure element corrupts the whole. A sea of pure water, fouled by a drop of blood is no longer pure. The same it is with truth. It can be partly true, based on a truth, etc., but it requires that qualifier- despite the idiocy of the Snopes definition. For example, if alligators were found in NYC sewers they wd no longer be a UL, but a fact. Just as gorillas were once legendary, but are now fact. The chronological qualifier of the past tense 'were', would be required; as in 'Alligators in NYC sewers were an urban legend until they were in fact discovered in 2008', or the like. Similarly, if I state 'George Washington was a tall white man who was the first President of the United States,' I am stating an unequivocal truth. However, if I change a single element, if I substitute is for was, short for tall, black for white, woman for man, second for first, Governor for President, France for US, the whole sentence is untrue, despite truths within it. It may be partly or mostly true, but it is in the whole false. Similarly, any legend- urban or not- is untrue. If proved true it ceases to be legend, and becomes fact- like the gorilla. This is basic logic, and semiotics. Another user states that it is a vital point that ULs can be untrue. I agree it's vital, but the lad has lost his head- and I don't care what some website or book says. No cited source is above logic and truth, and as a claimed encyclopedia Wiki should be held to higher standards than any old website. I would like to lay out my case before whatever powers that be on these matters. I realize this may not be as 'sexy' a battle or issue as President Bush, abortion, the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, but if this org cannot even stabd up for impeccable logic and truth, thaen what's the point? I've other points to make, but this is my basic case, and I think both are worthy. The first for simple functionality, and the second for logic. Forgive me if I seem picayune, but these seem to me to be the essence of what a source of knowledge shd be about. Please advise me. Cheers, Iago Dali 01:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on Alambama Boy's page, but he almost missed it, because you posted it to the front page, and this does not generate a "got new messages" message. I notified him. The best way to post a message is to leave it on the "talk" page of the user, not the "front" page. WELCOME to Wikipedia, and take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 02:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say that we try and be as credible as we can. Sometimes problems can occur with this type of project, because anyone can edit it. I looked at your cat problem, and the cat article itself has been changed. I would tend to agree that a "legend" would, by definition, be false. However, in today's world, the English language is being hijacked and some words no longer have their proper meaning. I would say there are some things that can be both factual and legendary. Great battles, things of that sort. Semantics is a funny thing. People just don't have enough words, so they use slightly improper ones. The user you had been arguing with, DreamGuy has been in many disagreements, especially dealing with myths and the like. Some people are just made to fight, don't let them bother you. As for your first dispute above, if there really is a list of 100 links, it should probably be shortened. I'm heading over to check that out right now. I don't think there is any need for a Request for Arbitration, but in the future you may list an issue at Request for Comment. Keep your chin up. Have a nice day. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For your work on Wikipedia. Molotov (talk)
23:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, please post comments on the "talk page" rather than the user page. Thanks. Molotov (talk)
23:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Gioia

I noticed you deleted quite a bit of the information on the Dana Gioia article. Why was that? PedanticallySpeaking 17:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look in the edits notes- mostly it was superfluous and POV. For example, there was a sentence like, "But Gioia is keen to do anything that can make the arts more available to the public.'- aside from being something a twelve year old girl would write in her diary- it's POV. I've cleaned up many articles- too often there are soap operatic toches, melodrama, and begats as in the bible. It is not germane that famous Artist X's grandaughter was friends with famous nuclear physicist Y. These are encyclopedia entries, not places for hero worship.

Also, folks like to puff up pieces with a dozen or more subsections that are confusing. Also, every little quote a person says it not needed- that's why there's wikiquote.

From the earlier version:

Gioia brought a new visibility to the agency and wooed Congressional Republicans, actually getting a sizable increase in his agency's budget. "Dana is a superb politician. He knows how to talk to Congress and to the arts community, and to state and federal agencies and to the complex, gigantic, fire-breathing beast called the White House," said David Gelernter of Yale University.

This is simply cheerleading. A Joe Friday, 'Just The Facts' approach is best. Thus why NPOV exists. My whole piece on his NEA work reads:

Gioia was President George W. Bush's second choice to lead the NEA, the first, composer Michael P. Hammond, having died only a week after taking office in January 2002. Gioia got a sizable increase in his agency's budget. Gioia created new programs such as Shakespeare in Communities, bringing the Bard to small towns, and NEA Jazz Masters, promoting jazz music. The NEA presents an annual award for jazz that Gioia would like to see become the jazz equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize.

Gioia is not without critics. Some Republicans in Congress, such as Colorado's Tom Tancredo believe the government has no business funding the arts and wants the NEA abolished. In the arts community, some fault the NEA for abandoning its grants to individual artists that were terminated after controversy over Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, and others. In July 2004, the NEA released a study showing how little time Americans were dedicating to literature. In 2005, he began what he called the "Big Read" program, seeking to get Americans to reading serious literature.

This is simply straight forward, Good or bad Gioia's work shd be told, not cheered. If a big name writer or artist makes a proclamation it may be notable, but not someone who prob has an interest in Gioia's parceling of money. Too many atrticles read like National Enquirer pieces, with innuendo, cheerleading, or damnation. NPOV is best, and I think my trimming of this piece made it much better, encyclopedia-like, and professional--as well unquestionably NPOV. Iago Dali 22:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Iago Dali 22:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think we have differing understandings of what is NPOV, something I've encountered before, e.g. with my work on the Julia Stiles article. NPOV does not mean an article devoid of sourced opinions on someone. I don't see the Gelertner quote as "cheerleading" but rather an observation by an interested party at how Gioia has done a lot of work to resurrect a badly battered agency. My sectioning was not meant to "puff up". There are many who like articles broken into sections. When I've had sectionless articles up at FAC, I've been criticized for it, even when they were shorter articles to begin with. Finally, I feel that your deletions drained a lot of life out of the article. Some Wikipedians talk of "gray goo" articles and I think this article has moved in that direction. I've tried to do good work here and I've had a number of articles made FA, so I am disappointed that you find my work unprofessional--that's not said with rancor, just with dismay. Again, thanks for replying to me. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare

Hello there. I think some of your changes at William Shakespeare will prove controversial and some may get reverted. Could you give a summary at Talk:William Shakespeare of what you're trying to achieve because your deletions may seem excessive to many. Thanks. The Singing Badger 13:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Piñero

HI, I originated the article and it is based on facts. I did my research and went to a lot of trouble to write it. I consider it an insult to my intelligence that you even consider this a hero worship inclined article. If that were so then all of my 295 articles are hero worshiping. It is obvious that you do not know anything about the discrimination that Puerto Ricans had to face and still do and how this factor can contribute to what you become in the future. Yes, he was sent to prison for armed robbery. Yes, his novel "Short Eyes" is based on the relationships among prisoners. Yes, in the Nuyorican cafe Puerto Ricans express there experiences in New York and Piñero considered Miguel Alagrin who co-founded the cafe his best friend. Yes, He was a talented writer and drug addict. All of these are facts and not fiction. As a mini-biography it is essencial that the reader understand these facts. There is nothing melodramatic about his life and much less anything to be worshiped. Do not delete the "See also" which links to the List of famous Puerto Ricans. There is "no" such category as "List of Puerto Ricans" If you want to eliminate a word that you consider POV, O.K. If you want to add information or edit, fine. But do "not" delete sections that will lead to the understanding of the personality of the individual. I have been with Wiki for some time now and my featured article is a testamony as to the fact that I do not indulge in POV's. As an Administrator I believe that I have the experience and knowledge of Wiki policies. If you have any disagreements with what I've stated then you may take it up with the arbiration committee. Otherwise, I hope you have a nice day. Tony the Marine 17:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Nomination

Thanks for wanting to nominate me to be an admin. I'm honored that you would want to do so. If you nominate me, I would accept.--Alabamaboy 17:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dali

Dali, I know that you are well intentioned and by looking at your contributions, a hard working editor who is an asset to Wikipedia. When I blocked you, it was because I truly believed that you violated the three revert rule and not for personal reasons. I asked User:Mindspillage to mediate because she is the type of person who will tell you (me) things to your face like it or not. My block was improper and I publicly recognized it as my dumb mistake and thanked Mindspillage for unblocking you. I believed that you constently vandalized the article by deleting certain facts, however I did come to the conclution that you did have a point and made some changes to eliminate anything that may be considered POV. Sure, things got a little heated up and I felt insulted by the term "Hero Worshiping" and of being accused of being a poor writer and you felt the sameway about being called a "Vandel". However, I think with the article as it now looks, we can put this dispute to an end. Therefore, I extend my hand to you in Wilipedian friendship. Tony the Marine 18:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. May I suggest that you take a look at this article Anna Vissi? )

Alabamaboy's RfA

Hi. Please note that new RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted on the main RfA page must have both acceptance by the candidate and the answers to the questions on the subpage, or the nominations may be removed. Please have Alabamaboy accept the nom and answer the questions on his RfA page before transcluding it to the main RfA page. Let me know if you need help with the transclusion, as it's done with a template rather than a cut-and-paste. Cheers! BDAbramson ^talk 21:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate your efforts to nominate a worthy candidate for adminship, and agree that the process can be confusing. Simply put, Alabamaboy has a nomination page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy. That's where he needs to accept/answer questions. Once that is done, all you need to do is post the following on the main RfA page:

{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy}}

Let me know if you have any questions! BDAbramson ^talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- P.S., I'm actually not an admin, just an old hand at Wikipedia who occasionally undertakes some admin-like tasks to lighten the load. BDAbramson ^talk 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]