User talk:Callelinea/Archives/Archive 1

Contributions

Hello Callelinea. Thank you very much for your excellent contributions creating new articles on Cuban subjects. This is most appreciated. Feel free to add {{WP Cuba}} to the talk pages of new articles, which means they can be incorporated into WikiProject Cuba, and you may also wish to add new pages to Portal:Cuba/New article announcements. Thanks. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Callelinea, regarding the project template, you need only copy the text that appears on this page (ie. without the tl inserted in the code) and it should display the template. See my amendment on Talk:Del Junco. Thanks. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Henry Pollack

Looking at this article, I agree in that there's a great deal of POV statements. What you might want to do is to find what sources you can for the provable statements (don't worry about format... just type something simple up like <ref>[http://here.com Proof]</ref> for now... references can be tricky to do). For the rest, tag some of the more glaring POV stuff with the {{fact}} tag behind it. That way anyone else who reads it will know there's something fishy about the statement made. Tabercil 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you recreated this article? It was deleted as part of the AfD discussion. -Amarkov moo! 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at the rewrite. They may have been thinking of [this] comment. Callelinea, let Amarkov know what your intentions are. JodyB _talk 00:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your rewrite. Here's the problem. There is only one claim in the article that might possibly make him notable. That is, that he was the point of a Cuban claim to the UN. However, you have not cited it. You simply cannot add material and hope for the best. You have to properly show and note where that information came from like you would in an academic paper. The other question is whether or not that claim really is notable. If he is just mentioned in passing, then probably not. If he's the main point of an international issue then probably so. Also, you might look for other things that make him notable. Is there no coverage of his work with CAUSA. You say that he/they have been credited with pressuring the Clinton administration. Who says? Where did they say it? You may or may not have an article worth saving. But at the moment, I would argue for deletion. You have to document your claims. Be sure and read WP:N which will help you understand what makes a subject notable, WP:RS which helps you under stand what sources are considered acceptable and WP:V which explains why we must be able to verify everything in the Wikipedia. Please read those guidelines and policies. Let me know when you've done some more updating and I'll check back. I have no grudge against the Pollack article but it has to meet the standards. JodyB _talk 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have access to the Lexis/Nexis service and a search turned up nothing but four articles about the healthcare fraud charge and sentencing. You may be facing a very steep uphill battle. JodyB _talk 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got your comments. I am unaware if you read Spanish but my second source.. http://www.cubaminrex.cu/CDH/60cdh/nota_prensa%20.htm.. is the protest letter that the Cuban government filed to the United Nations where it mentions Enrique A. Pollack and his actions. As far as the CAUSA problem. I guess it could be removed.. I know that at the time in 1994 it was mentioned a few times in The Miami Herald and the Diario De Las Americas (the local papers in South Florida) but I have yet to find out which days they appeared. Thanks for your imput. Callelinea 11:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you add those comments immediately to the article. I do not speak Spanish but I would assume their inclusion would make a difference. JodyB _talk 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and the excellent work on researching sources regarding Enrique Pollack. That is exactly the type of sources that Wikipedia needs -- multiple independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject and the facts asserted in the article. In addition I found one other, from the St. Petersburg Times (see below). And thanks for acquainting me with NewsBank, which appears to be an excellent resource. Needless to say, I have changed my vote and comments in the Deletion Review. Best, --MCB 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the additional article:

St. Petersburg Times - September 23, 1996

Silence greets effort to discuss Cuba

" "Miami calling; please answer the phone," Enrique Pollack said into the radio microphone Sunday after dialing the telephone number for Radio Progreso in Havana. The phone rang and rang. "I just want to talk; let's talk," said Pollack, program director of Miami's Havana Rock radio show, which airs Sunday evenings and is aimed at young people who live in communist Cuba [....]"

Something to keep in mind when using a non-english source on the english wikipedia is found here. I just don't want you to get crossed up with anybody over this. You've put too much work into it. JodyB _talk 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Please accept this Barnstar of Diligence for exceptional perseverance in researching Enrique A. Pollack and for multiple contributions to Wikipedia in the field of Cuban culture and history. Cheers, --MCB 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

http://nl.newsbank.com/

Abogado-Notario

Hello. You posted a question on my user page about what an "abogado-notario" was so you could better understand what your grandfather and great-grandfather did for a living. I am not 100% sure, but I can give you some information that may help get you going. Be aware that this refers to abogado-notario in the general sense and may not be applicable to Cuba. I suspect that it will apply to pre-revolutionary Cuba because its legal system was derived largely from the Spanish system and what I tell you will be applicable in Spain and many of its former colonies. So here we go:

An "abogado" is simply an attorney, someone licensed to practice law. A "notario" is a notary - but this is much different than from what a notary in the US is. In civil law countries (which Cuba was before the revolution, and which it remains in many respects today), a notary is somebody who tends to do what in the US is known as transactional work (drafting contracts, wills organizing real estate transactions, etc., and also doing public records type work and authenticating documents). It is a lucrative job to have - it generally takes additional study beyond what is merely required to practice law. I don't know if they limited how many notaries there could be at one time in Cuba (in France, for example, there are only so many notary positions allowed.)

I saw on your user page that you often travel to Cuba. If you want to learn more about what your grandfather and great-grandfather did for a living, I would suggest stopping by the University of Havana the next time you are in Cuba. I see you have been there a number of times, so you no doubt know where it is. The law school, as of May 2006 when I was there, was under renovation and the faculty of law was located temporarily across the road from the university. You might want to drop by and see if they have information. Consider stopping in to the National Union of Cuban Jurists (UNCJ) (it's the bar association for Cuban lawyers). They may have records or otherwise be able to give you some information on what your grandfather did. Their office is in Vedado, but I forget exactly where. Somebody no doubt could point you in the right direction. Alternatively, if your ancestors practiced law outside of Havana province, you might want to travel to the capital of the province in which they lived and find the UNCJ headquarters and see what kind of info you can get from them - I saw one in Santa Clara and one in Cienfuegos, so I know they exist.

I hope this information was helpful and I wish you the best of luck in your research. takethemud 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To add - under the current system in Cuba, for many documents to be legally acceptable, they need to be notarised. (For example, foreign companies' documents when opening a bank account). Notaries also are the ones who marry a foreigner and a Cuban. So I see a notary as a specific form of a lawyer. -- Beardo 21:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rogelio Pina Estrada

Thank you so much, that's great! :) Chris 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Callelinea/Archives/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Isabel S. Martinez

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Isabel S. Martinez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Myanw 09:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the template from the page. Follow the proposed deletion process.--Dali-Llama 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the proposed deletion process again. If you need to revert vandalism, please make sure you do not delete the template, as it's a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you feel the vandalism is out-of-control, please ask for semi-protection on the page. Thanks!--Dali-Llama 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This article still doesn't come even close to satisfying the requirements of WP:BIO. Please review these guidelines and conform the article accordingly. Rklawton 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion. This review and discussion process typically takes five days. Your recent edits failed to address any of the requirements listed under WP:BIO. If you wish to defend this article in its deletion discussion page (here) you'll want to familiarize yourself with our biographical articles guidelines. Rklawton 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

You've got 100% delete votes for this article - not counting yours. Doesn't that give you pause to think? Rklawton 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Callelinea, please don't take the AfD personally. I've seen your contributions and I think they are very valuable--you take a particular topic (Cuba, mostly) and you run with it (I mostly do the same for Brazil, so I feel the pain of sometimes having to establish notability according to the current policy). I wouldn't like to see an editor become frustrated with an issue that is not personal, but political. Policy can be changed. Like some said, many echo the inclusive philosophy and feel it should be included, but voted for deletion because of the current policy. The good thing about Wikipedia is that policy, just like articles, can be changed. Best of luck and keep the good edits coming!--Dali-Llama 23:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

copy/pasting KEEP statements on a couple of dozen AFDs because you believe Wiki should be more inclusive is not productive. Try taking it up at the village pump. It's likely nobody will consider any statement from you on any AFD after this. CitiCat 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:POINT for a guideline explaining why your behavior in this regard is not appropriate. As we've told you before (why don't you ever believe us), if you want to change guidelines, take it up on the relevant guideline's talk page. Rklawton 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A word of advice. By adding blanket copy-and-paste keeps to dozens of AfD like you have, you've insured that the credibility of your future comments is shod. Perhaps you should consider going back and editing/tempering those? I assume you've been stressed out by an AfD on an article that mattered to you personally (which is, by the way, a bad idea)... but this knee-jerk reaction will do little but harm you in the long run. -- Coren ^(talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also please stop capitalising your emboldened keep or delete or other comment at AfD, it is unnecessary and I also strongly suggest you see WP:ILIKEIT and the others listed throughout that essay. Thank you --The Sunshine Man 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not spam editor's talk pages complaining about the current round of AfD's. This is inappropriate behavior. If you wish, you can post a complaint at WP:ANI. This will attract the attention of administrators and isn't (generally) considered disruptive. Rklawton 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Once the Isabel S. Martinez AfD ended the way it did, I noticed that a lot of her relatives also had articles, so I went through a few of those articles and nominated those that don't meet Wikipedia's WP:BIO guideline. Please notice that I did not nominate all of your articles. But you need to understand what constitutes notability. Run-of-the-mill doctors and lawyers, although probably good people, don't get articles on Wikipedia. And I am not part of any sort of cabal out to get you. Even if I do think your comments on AfDs that say that anything anybody wants to write an article should be kept are a bit over the top. Corvus cornix 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Callelinea, at your request, I reviewed each of the articles. Generally, the AfD's seem reasonable to me. But let me explain why so that you can prevent this in the future. Articles must have some reason to exist here. We would say that an article has to be notable. Such notability is established through the use of reliable sources. Please see and careful read both WP:V and WP:N. Many people who come from a "prominent' family have never really accomplished anything notable enough to belong here. Find a secondary source like a newspaper or magazine article, maybe a website, that discusses your subject and be prepared to use it to show why the person is notable. Use incline citations and the article should be fine. But remember, it is primarily your responsibility to properly source your articles and assert the importance or notability of the subject. See also WP:BLP for information about articles about living people. If I can help more, please let me know. JodyB _talk 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am forced to agree, Callelina. I voted "Keep" for the Alonso R. del Portillo article, and a "soft keep" for the Alonso del Portillo-del Junco article, but "Delete" for the other four. I'm sorry, but general contractors, lawyers or businessmen, in and of themselves, who have not done something that has penetrated the public consciousness or brought them into noticeable public life, do not qualify, IMHO, as noteworthy enough for inclusion on WP. But don't be discouraged. I've had an article that I worked long and hard on deleted before, much to my frustration. (It was an article on the message board website, www.nitcentral.com.) And if the Alonso R. del Portillo article ends up getting deleted, do what I did with the one of mine that got deleted: Save it on your computer. One day, he may become noteworthy enough to merit his own article, and you won't have to start over from scratch. But keep up the hard work, and the WP community will take notice. Don't let this get you down. :-) Nightscream 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Even your comment on my talk page that you intend to do more probably isn't enough. For one thing we don't leave unsourced material, especially about living people, in the encyclopaedia if it could be considered controversial. Second, the sources need to be of the type that they could be reviewed and checked by other editors. A private source of the Cuban government which could not otherwise be verified would not, IMO, be sufficient. We do appreciate your efforts but some standards are pretty firm. As for one editor listing the articles, well that's not necessarily relevant here since the consensus seems to be against keeping them. JodyB _talk 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not have to be published in the US nor does it have to be in English. If you will carefully read WP:V you will be well equipped to gain the proper sources. Let me suggest you look at WP:NOR as well. JodyB _talk 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[1] - WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not doing your cause any favors by all of your little hissies. Corvus cornix 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed your AfD for Carlos Prio-Touzet. I thought this might be useful. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC) You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

• To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
• To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

I – Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor. If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc. Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page. The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well: Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions. Open the articles for deletion log page for editing. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.) Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page. Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~ If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~

Please do not continue to submit incorrectly formatted (and incomplete) AfDs. The way in which you are submitting them means that the chances of anyone encountering the discussions are very slim, because you are not listing them anywhere other than the article. Please read the above instructions and fix your ongoing AfD debates. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given you a one hour block. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Improperly and incompletely listing a dozen random articles for deletion is NOT productive. Circeus 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what I did wrong? I nomininated articles I felt needed to be nomininating and stated my reasons for nominating them. Callelinea 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

See the issue yourself:

If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD [and calls it non-notable]

don't list hundreds of other articles on AfD in one day to try to save it.

A spade is a spade, if you can't be bothered to at least properly follow the full nomination procedure every time, don't start slapping AFDs on articles. Circeus 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My articles are beyond saving, but what does my article have to do with my nominating other articles? I have stated why they are non-notable and the reasons are valid..Again I am asking for your help in what I did wrong? Callelinea 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now I think it would be a good idea for you not to start any new AFDs until you've cooled down. Step away, have ice cream or something. I'm involved in a silly dispute right now myself at talk:Verbascum thapsus, but it's not by doing anything to other articles I'm going to get it solved. The only work you can do to save an AFD nomination is by improving the article with brilliant prose and reliable sources. A properly verifiable article is almost never deleted. Circeus 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How immature. Corvus cornix 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I am neutral on that issue. While all articles look interesting and generally ok, they really may not fulfill the criteria of notability. - Darwinek 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, chill. I know it's heart-wrenching to see what you've created put up for deletion, but stay calm. You've done good work, and don't let this rough spot sour you on Wikipedia. Right now I'm at work and I don't have the opportunity to properly take a look at what's going on and to give you any advice on what you should do. What I would strongly advise you to do is not to do things like put further articles up for AfD... even if the other articles deserve to be put up, it's really bad optics coming so soon after your own articles going up for AfD.

Expect a further, more detailed message with advice in about a couple of hours after I get home and have a chance to take a long look here... Tabercil 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. First things first, I can sympathize with how you feel... seeing a number of articles which you've sweated over up for deletion. Hell, I've been in the same situation myself, and a bunch of articles to which I've made contributions (and even created) now exist as nothing more than redlinks. You have a lot of people chiming in voting to delete... and it's rough. Remember when Sinead O'Connor went on stage at that Bob Dylan tribute concert and she got the living shit booed out of her? Do you remember what Kris Kristofferson said to her at that time? His exact words: "Don't let the bastards get you down". Well, Callelinea, don't let them get you down. You've done good work... you've picked up a Barnstar, that's something to be proud of, and I have faith in your being able to positively contribute to Wikipedia otherwise I wouldn't be typing this.

I always view an AfD as saying this about an biographical article: "someone thinks this article does not, as it stands now, present a good enough argument as to why this person is notable." So what I do is I try to take a fresh look at the article and ask myself: "Why do I think this person notable? Why do they think this person is not notable?" Maybe the article doesn't say within why the person is notable - for instance, someone could have deleted it then put it up for AFD... it's happened. Maybe the article does say why, but it's not very well explained. Or maybe the person simply is not notable.

Wikipedia has deliberately set a bar, saying that anything under that level does not belong here. That bar is Wikipedia:Notability (people) (more commonly referred to as WP:BIO). So let's take a fresh look at the articles that are up for deletion and compare them to the bar.

First up, Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista. When I look at this article, I see some redlinks for starts - that's not a good sign right there to me as that makes me think that the person at the other end of that redlink is not notable. The bulk of the information present is strictly genealogical in that the best argument for keeping it is Miguel's relationship to Mauricio J. Tamargo but there's nothing to show what Miguel actually did. As a different notability guide (that being Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)) points out as invalid notability criteria: "The person has a relationship with a well-known person. Relationships do not transfer notability.". Unfortunately, unless there's some major additions to it, this article is toast... sorry. I would save a copy of the article on your hard drive so if you do find clear evidence showing what Miguel did that's notable (presumably during your Cuban visit in August) you can easily recreate it. But remember, if/when you do recreate the article, make sure that you present clear evidence of notability, and provide sources as well.

Pretty much the same can be said for Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo, Alonso del Portillo-Marcano and Alonso del Portillo-del Junco. These articles presents clear genealogical information, but we already know that being related to a notable person does confer notability. What did they do toi make them notable? Were they active in politics? Did they have prominent places in society? That's what's needed.

Next up is the last biography: Alonso R. del Portillo. As Nightscream said in the AFD, he is most noteworthy in relation to Pedro Zamora. But that's tangential and it doesn't fully satisfy the notability criteria so this article should be expanded with aditional information about what Alonso did.

Now there is another issue with Alonso R. del Portillo and it's a big honking doozy: this is an article about you Callelinea, isn't it? I remember this edit from back when you first started editing Wikipedia and got into a tussle with User:Enriquepollack and I got dragged into it because Enrique got the two of us mixed up (and I have a very good memory). As well, the biographical details found in the article on Alonso and your own user profile line up. If that's the case then you're going to have to recuse yourself from further edits to this article, and perhaps also from further arguments to the AfD. The reasoning for this can be found in Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." You'd be well advised to read through the entire Autobiography guideline just to be safe.

Lastly is Vinagre Portillo. The article says it was the "second largest vinegar producing company..." (which makes it a big fish) "in Cuba" (in a small pond). What you should do is to expand the article to show greater evidence of notability. For instance, is the pond bigger than it first seems - for example, were they were the second largest in all of the Caribbean? Or you might so some action of theirs made them notable. For instance, you note in the article that the factory was torn down for housing... is there a why behind that? Was it Castro's way of revenge for some action on the part of the company or the company's owners?? If so, what happened in the first place to cause the "revenge"? That might be a clue as to how you can establish notability... but that'll require research to come up with reliable sources and I doubt you'll be able to come up with something before the current AFD process is done.

Now, let's move on to what you did after the AFD. I hate to be blunt, but I feel I have to be: what you did was piss poor stupid and you deservedly got blocked for it. Yes, I know - ouch. What you did in putting the other articles up for AFD could be construed as disruptive. And as it was pointed out to you, Wikipedia has an entire policy page on that topic: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (commonly referred to as WP:POINT). Even if you had already planned to put those articles up for AFD, doing so at this point in time is just bad optics. As well, this edit does not make you look good. Now admittedly you reverted yourself but still... My advice? Suck it up and apologize. Say you're human, you went way over the top in your reaction and in the future you won't make that stupid mistake again. And put it in your own words... it doesn't need to be right away. You might want to take a day or two, walk away from Wikipedia to chill out then come back and apologize. You're on rather thin ice right now as a result of your reaction to the AFDs... the most important thing you must do is think first before you you act further.

Now I know some of what I have said is probably not what you want to hear, but that's how I see the situation. Remember, I'm here to help you out... if you want you can drop me an email. Tabercil 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reponse re: Your AFD's

Hello:

I got the posting on my wall from you regarding your articles nominated for deletion. I read them and chimed in on three that I thought were definitely worth keeping. Unfortunately, the votes seem to be against your articles being maintained.

My general feeling is that Wikipedia should have as much information on it as possible and that where reasonable persons may differ as to whether something is noteworthy, it is best to err on the side of inclusion. But, as you know, many people on Wikipedia do not share the same view. That is why articles which are borderline noteworthy get deleted. On a related note, it seems that these articles all relate to one family. If this is your family, be aware that Wikipedia does have policies relating to what are called "vanity articles." That, and note solely 'noteworthiness', may be the reason for deletion of these articles.

My advice to you would be this: If the articles are deleted (which they may be), it isn't exactly a miscarriage of justice, but that doesn't mean the information is irrelevant to Wikipedia. You should try as hard as you can to get this information included on Wikipedia. You may want to create an article about "pre-Castro Cuban Industrialists" or "Cuban Politicians of the 20th Century" or "pre-Castro Cuban Industry" in order to get this information (or at least part of it) included on Wikipedia. At the very least, create your own genealogical webpage and find some way to link to it (perhaps through an article on "Cuban Genealogy," which you, as a Cuban genealogist, could always create).

I hope this was helpful. Best of luck to you w/ these articles & enjoy your upcoming trip to Cuba. Say "hello" to the Malecon for me.

takethemud 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.. will do on saying hi to the malecon.. :) Callelinea 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:COI: COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. I am therefore asking you not to edit articles about you or your family members or comment further on the AfD discussion pages. If continue to do so, I will immediately block your account from editing. I hope I make myself clear. Your behavior has been inappropriate and disruptive, and you have significantly abused our good faith. Rklawton 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

deletions of Cuban articles

Hi! What the heck is going on, why are so many Cuban articles being deleted recently? If they can have an article on every little character in all the videogames, then there should be articles on Cuban notables. Someday Cuba will be open again, and we will wish we had all this information that was removed. Chris 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't have all of them them on my watchlist, so I didn't see the AfDs. :( Let me know when these AfDs happen, and I will vote. I just know, when I needed it, you came through with Rogelio Pina Estrada and filled in a blank in Cuba's Scouting history. (Thank you again) The Spanish language Wikipedia doesn't have a whole lot of good articles on Scouting, so when Cuba is as it should be, the information should be here available. My Mom spoke of the potential and great beauty of Cuba and the natural good relationship with the US, better than any other place in Latin America, and she had wanted to see the time when that was restored. Maybe someday soon. Thanks, and sorry I missed them, Chris 06:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris (stalking again) and Callelinea my sincere sympathy as well. I've noticed Cambodian articles going under the hammer as well - I've found three new articles up for speedy deletion in the last week - including the Khmer Rouge Tribunal fer Chrissake. Goodness knows how many I've missed. Nobody can monitor the sheer volume of AfDs, Prods and Speedy deletions that are happening right now - it's insane. My solution has been to search for every Cambodian article I can find, watchlist it (then I'll know if it goes to AFD) and then add them all to List of Cambodia-related topics, then interested editors can monitor changes to all the articles by clicking 'Related Changes' on the side bar. My next step is to copy the list into a page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cambodia so that other project members can at least see any new red links that appear and follow up. It feels a little like a deletion-war zone here right now. Maybe those ideas might be helpful for monitoring Cuban articles. Callelinea I'd also like to be informed of any Cuban AfDs that are going - it wont be canvassing - simply some monitoring from the Systemic bias Wikiproject. Cheers, Paxse 08:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Antonio de la Rúa. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Yamla 14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think someone needs to go back to Administrator school. those links do not promote anything but link articles of reference to the subject. If you looked at any of them you could of seen that. Callelinea 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE. The Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, nor is it appropriate to link to foreign language sources (except in exceptional circumstances) or blogs, etc. --Yamla 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:EL and WP:SPAM, but that's already linked to above. --Yamla 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from linking to the Spanish Wikipedia. As has been pointed out to you, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. If you wish to note the equivalent foreign-language version of an article, you can add a link at the bottom of the page, such as [[es:Article name]]. See for example, Keira Knightley for an article linking to a number of foreign language versions. --Yamla 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for your continued violations of WP:EL. --Yamla 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Me

To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.42.56.206 Blocking admin: Yamla Block reason: Spamming links to external sites Block originally applied to: Callelinea Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair: I feel it is totally unfair because I explained my position. I am not Spaming. Nor have I ever Spamed. What I did was post references to the article Moraima Secada and Antonio de la Rúa and she claims they are spams, when they are in fact refrences in Spanish. Additionally, if you look at the AfD of Antonio de la Rúa you will see that other see nothing wrong with including articles in Spanish and with listing Spanish Wikipedia as one of the references. Callelinea 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your autoblock, which appears to have stayed active after you were unblocked for some reason. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 01:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Afds

Sorry, Callelinea. I've been away from the site and missed your plea for help on those Cuban articles. I'm disappointed that they were deleted as I found them very interesting, but I hope you continue your good work on other articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The José Martí Barnstar
		For your work on Cuban biography articles. --Qyd 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to forestall a firestorm

I want to let you know that I am deletion your bishop articles for nomination, because, in my opinion, and because of the second opinion that I got before doing the nomination (Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Bishops), bishops are not inherently notable, unlike Archbishops and Cardinals. I did not know that you were the original editor of the articles when I began the deletion process, so please know that this is not anything personal. Corvus cornix 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond about the name of this man. I have done so on my user talk page. Noel S McFerran 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Saints Star Award

The Saints Star Award may be awarded for efforts in Saints WikiProject, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Anglicanism, and WikiProject Christianity. Created for saints of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia by Essjay. See Saints Star Award for more information. For all your hard work on the Miami Archdiocese bishops. Thanks, your work helps make the project more informative. NancyHeise 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

re:Athletics at the 1926 Central American and Caribbean Games

Unfortunatly my source for the above was for (track and field) athletics only. I don't know of any sources for swimming as my interest is (track and field) athletics. Also note that the article was meant as results for athletics (what US calls track and field not as in sport in general) hence I have removed your link to the swimmer. good luck with finding a source for the swimming. Waacstats 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Msgr. Bryan O. Walsh

I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a page for this very important person in the history of Miami. NancyHeise 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Emilio Ochoa Ochoa

The articles Emilio Ochoa Ochoa and Emilio Ochoa seem to be about the same person. Please consider merging the articles. -- Jreferee t/c 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is the correct article title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions? Once you determine that, post a request at WP:SPLICE. -- Jreferee t/c 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Machin, Again

How are we to consider other Wikpedias reliable sources, when they are not subject to any peer review or official scrutiny and can be changed by anyone? They're as reliable as MySpace or blogs. Besides which, we have already established that you didn't actually use that Wikipedia as a source - you copied and pasted a biography from a site you didn't source at all, All Music Guide. If I have to, I'll get a third opinion about this, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the right about all this. And your behavior is awful fishy. Chubbles (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry Pollack

I hate to ask this of you, but could you please refrain from further edits to the Henry Pollack article? This is strictly to bring some peace to the article, and to avoid an appearance of you having a conflict of interest. This would also include reverting edits made by others which can be construed as vandalism... there are at least two administrators watching the article (including myself) so vandalism will be caught and dealt with. If you wish to further contribute to the article, you can leave comments at Talk:Henry Pollack. Thank you. Tabercil 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dexter Lehtinen

Please provide legit links to references in Dexter Lehtinen, all of your supposed references are bogus without valid links. Corvus cornix_talk 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not referees. Corvus cornix_talk 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to do a Google news search, it's the responsbility of the editor to provide valid references. Corvus cornix_talk 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to provide valid links, those "references" are bogus. Corvus cornix_talk 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit differences are not vandalism. Templating me with vandalism templates is bullshit, and you know it. Corvus cornix_talk 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Dexter_Lehtinen Corvus cornix_talk 06:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see another editor agrees with me. Corvus cornix_talk 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

and the date you retrieved it if it is online Corvus cornix_talk 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So then why is it so difficult for you to add the actual links? Corvus cornix_talk 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to know which of the cited news articles pertain to which claims in the article. Or indeed if any of them are relevant. Use inline citations, preferably to online sources. Dethme0w (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of putting all the inline citations when my references were taken out by Corvus who has had numerious editorial fights with me. And the sources were correct in the bottom of the article. I would like to reques that you reinstall the sources. Callelinea (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It probably won't be necessary to restore all of them. The inlines you have already added are enough to remove the {{unsourced}} tag. Just go through the article and your own copy of that list and put in as many as you think are needed to support the points of the article. A seemingly indiscriminate list of newspaper article titles and dates that happen to include the subject doesn't really help, and I think that is what Corvus Cornix's point was. Dethme0w (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, as Dethme0w said, inline citations are preferred, as are links to the online sources if available. I suggest using citation templates as well so your citations get a nice consistent format. As an example, I've converted one of the citations at Dexter Lehtinen to the {{cite web}} template. Hope this helps! Jfire (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what is preferred. But were my references incorrect? I stated the name of the paper, the article name, the date, and the page number where the article showed up.Callelinea (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is anything wrong with unlinked references per se; many reliable sources are not available on line. But it is a very good idea to include them when available, especially when citing potentially sensitive or controversial material about a living person, as you are doing here. That said, I do agree that unilateral removal wasn't necessary -- a polite request would have gotten things off on a better foot. Hope it won't deter you from further editing, Jfire (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See? How difficult was that? I'm happy now. Corvus cornix_talk 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And now you've re-added the bogus references. I've placed a {{refimprove}} tag. Provide links. Corvus cornix_talk 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuban artists

Hello, Callelinea/Archives ... your cleanups to articles listed in Category:Cuban contemporary artists are commendable, but what these articles really need is reliable sources to verify meeting the WP:BIO criteria ... please see Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists#Continuing deletions, and perhaps you would like to add your name to the list of editors on this fledgling project ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries (redux)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Raúl Corrales Forno has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. "References and notability established" is not as informative as "Declined Prod". Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. When you decline a PROD, would you please update this Cuban artists checklist with a strikeout? Thnx! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. And please rename the articles in the list to reflect your redirects. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cuban artists" checklist

OK, none of these editors

• ArleArt (talk · contribs)
• Callelinea (talk · contribs)
• Dr Gangrene (talk · contribs)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
• Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs)
• MBisanz (talk · contribs)
• Pharmboy (talk · contribs)

have contributed to this "Cuban artists" checklist (although there have been limited dialogs on some talk pages) ... some of them either initiated or declined PRODs, and I have asked them politely to record their actions on the checklist (like renaming/merging articles) … I mean, declining a seconded PROD without even an edit summary? What's up with that?

Well, I'm sick of playing Sisyphus and cleaning up after them, so I have deleted these articles from my watchlist, and Some Other Editor can maintain/update it … or not.

In any event, it is time for me to MOVE ON. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}

{{Oldprodfull}}

Hello again, Callelinea/Archives ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{14:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}

ISBNs in references

Hello again, Callelinea/Archives ...

As I was putting some lipstick on Grupo Antillano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I noticed that you were using "ISBN:" ... FYI, if you omit the colon (":") then the MediaWiki software will automagically link the ISBN to the search engine on WP:Book sources, e.g., "ISBN 978-0917571121" does not require any formatting, but "ISBN: 978-0917571121" is not recognized. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}

P.S. Maybe some other day my evil twin will come through and add {{cite book}} templates, but not this session. — 72.75.110.142 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Added templates to Grupo_Antillano#References only … Some Other Editor can take care of the other articles … Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}

Alonso R. del Portillo

I see that you have deleted the article. I believe the G4 reasoning does not apply here as I explained in the Talk page of the article.. Additional references were provided and in-line citations.Callelinea (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. However the article is still almost the exact same as the version that was previously deleted. In the interest of giving it a fair run I will restore it and list it on AFD but I do not expect the result will be any different. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The difference is that now it is all verifiable. Callelinea (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That didn't seem to have been the concern at the last AFD. The concern was that the guideline at WP:BIO is not met, and you will need to explain exactly which of the possible criteria there that this person (you?) meets if you want the article kept. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could you also restore the talk page? Callelinea (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Everything in the 'References' section except for the personal certificates. It's got nothing to do with 'assuming good faith' - every article here needs to be independently sourced and referenced. That's how we protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Dreamspy (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Books are verifiable. The only thing not in print is TV appearence but it was aired on PBS. Callelinea (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• It's a list of books - how do we verify them as a valid source for this article without going to the library? If he's notable enough to be in so many books then he's notable enough to be mentioned independently on the internet. Is he? Dreamspy (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not talking about fame- I'm talking about notability, which should be verifiable from a variety of sources. How do we know that these books actually mention him/you? Dreamspy (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message to me on my Talk Page: Bias and lack of a neutral point of view is not indicated by a lack of inline citations, nor does pointing to such citations mitigate it as a problem. It is a problem that is inherent to your being the subject of the article, which cannot be resolved by a mere assertion by you to the contrary. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, maturity, objectivity and decency would understand this principle, and honor Wikipedia's mission by respecting its policies, not merely by upholding their letter, but their spirit as well, instead of engaging in wikilawyering by splitting hairs over whether a particular behavior is "prohibited" or "frowned upon" (and yes, my observation of your wikilawyering part of what WP is and not merely what I think it should be. See the wikilawyering passage on the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.) Creating an article about yourself is inherently wrong, and if you cannot bring yourself to admit this, then you are profoundly misinformed, and guided by a self-promotional agenda that is at odds with Wikipedia's mission, as indicated by various statements on your User Page. Nightscream (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, tried to help save this. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedro and Me

Nice update of this article. Corvus cornix_talk 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Belen

Thanks for your help on Belen. Maybe we can get this article cleaned up. I agree with you on athletics and just got reverted for my pains. But re-reverted. Hopefully the newbie won't be able how to go back more than one change!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good notables list. I hope we can answer challenges if made one at a time, if the challengers can focus on one. If they bring up a bunch, I think this is kitchen sink type of criticism and not really objective. I would suggest asking for a third party. Honestly, I am neutral/npov on this and about as third party as they can get, but whatever.... Student7 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Belen Notability

Hi, I just want to talk to you about the notability of a few people on the Alumni list.

1. Francisco Aruca
2. Jorge I. Dominguez
3. René Monteagudo
4. Braulio Baez
5. Alonso R. del Portillo - Found as "not notable" when the article was deleted twice. Also, WP:AUTOBIO.
6. Gustavo Leon
7. Roberto M. Pineiro

I'm not sure if these men meet the Wikipedia standards of notability as put forth by WP:NOTE. Now, I understand that you believe that people shouldn't have to stand up the a high degree of notability on Wikipedia, but that is not the common consensus.

I'm hoping we, as two educated men, can iron this out. --Rabbethan 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See, that's the thing. I can't find proof of non-notability. Proof of notability is what we need, and I was hoping you could help me with that. If you can prove that they meet the standards of notability, I have no problem keeping them on the page. --Rabbethan 06:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for establishing the notability of Aruca (even though his page needs a bit more citing, I'll try to get on that), Dominguez, and Baez. I'm still a little iffy about Leon and Pineiro, but I'll let that go. Now as far as you go, I can't find a consensus on either AFD that says you are notable enough to be listed as notable on any page. --Rabbethan 04:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the Notable Alumni page. --Rabbethan 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your excellent work on the Belen Alumni page. --Rabbethan 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi! Again thanks for all your contribs to Cuba-related articles. A simple request; would you mind to assess articles that you tag with {{WP Cuba}}. Oh and one more thing... Thanks :)— Navy  Blue  ^{formerly iDosh} 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Callelinea, I'm just responding to the archive request... Would you like me to set up an archive bot for you? That'll automatically archive any threads that have gone inactive, and then you won't have to worry about it anymore.  :) --Elonka 15:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I finally found a source!

That states the Belen faculty confiscated and burnt the school newspaper.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belen_Jesuit_Preparatory_School&diff=197244933&oldid=197166658 64.238.174.69 (talk)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

I have removed the two staffers you readded to her page. As the two individuals do not have Wikipedia biographies, it is likely that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. You also have a CoI since one of them is you. "Bill Burlew" -wikipedia only nets 179 Google hits, and he appears to share his name with at least one other person, and a search of your name -wikipedia nets only 29 hits. Horologium (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Perdew

Regarding the court case you mentioned in the afd, this one, it doesn't make him inherently notable just for being in a lawsuit. It tells us nothing about the writer other than that their song was the center of a lawsuit. Furthermore, there is nothing else about Perdew that makes him notable. That information is most certainly pertinent to Prop Me Up Beside the Jukebox (If I Die), but it's not enough to carry Perdew's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I aded the lawsuit info to "Prop Me Up"'s page. Also, please consider archiving your talk page, it's really long. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Amaryllis Knight

There is a discussion on a page that I noticed that you commented on. I am interested by your user page and agree with your ideas and policies. I was wondering if you might be interested in looking through the comments as seeing what you think. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzoJames (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gracias

Gracias por haber votado a mi favor en la discusión de borrado de mi biografía en la Wikipedia en inglés (soy Jorge Queirolo). Te dejo mi dirección de correo electrónico: jqueirolo@yahoo.com

Gracias nuevamente. Saludos.--201.239.134.185 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)