User talk:Joaquín Martínez/archive6

From Conservapedia
< User talk:Joaquín Martínez
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CPWebmaster (Talk | contribs) at 05:33, February 9, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

ilike your words on frnech painters i like painting am frenchman :)

(12:30, 19 May 2008) User:Frenchman

Sun - web.jpg

Te Papa

Thanks for updating that! AdenJ 08:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

You are welcome| --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

If you ever get a chance to visit my country you must see the Museum. I have been there many times and still have not seen it all. AdenJ 08:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, thanks. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:06, 23 May 2008 (EDT)


Block/Debate

Hey. I saw the debate that had been posted about “Are Mormons Christians”. I think that that’s a good topic to discuss, but I also noticed that you blocked the last user who attempted to bring it up. I want to start the debate again, but I don’t want to get blocked. So, if it’s inappropriate, will you please explain why? JimmyP 22:56, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

The reason is already given. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it? I'm sorry, then, but I haven't seen it. Could you please just humor me? (And I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I'm honestly curious.) JimmyP 13:27, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you going to ignore me? JimmyP 14:58, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

As soon as I have some free time, OK? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:02, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
I believe this is a too controversial issue. Andy also deleted it; you may ask him too. God bless you. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Why does controversy mean that it can't be disscussed? Should we avoid things because they're controversial? And Andy blocked the first guy to put it up because he violated the 90/10 rule. JimmyP 15:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)


Andy deleted the old debate article too. May be you can choose another name, not offensive. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:46, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

He deleted it because the guy broke the 90/10 rule for too much talk. And what do you mean "choose anther name"? In fairness, anyone can be offended by anything. There will never be anything that everything is okay with. So just because someone doesn't like it, should we not talk about it? JimmyP 15:52, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand your point. In my opinion it is an offensive issue to doubt about the core faith of this religion. But I don't think my word is the last one. Please contact Andy. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:57, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. Thank you for your time. JimmyP 15:59, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:00, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

re: Japan

Hi - thank you for the invitation, I'll definitely have a look and see how I can help, although I haven't lived there for a few years, so I might be a bit behind on some things :) Arigatou! --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 12:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Vandal

Hi Joaquin - not sure if you're online, but maybe you'd better stop Marxlol - he's already had a go at Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thanks! --JessicaTOhayo gozaimasu! 11:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Great quote

Great quote from Hazlitt in welfare, Joaquin! I really learned from that one. Thank you.--Aschlafly 08:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

You are very welcome Andy. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Tom Moore

Can you elaborate on why Tom Moore was blocked? A month is a long time to cut off a productive, thoughtful contributor like him over a difference of opinion on editing. He represents a different point of view, but when someone does research and puts in encyclopedic content with valid references, then he deserves an academic-level response, not the sledgehammer of a block. I'll probably get blocked myself for saying this (I just came off of a 1-week block for "supporting a troublemaker" over a math issue), but it's becoming apparent that while we mere editors have to argue points on merit, some of the people with block privileges are using it to end arguments and smack down people whose views annoy them, instead of reserving it for vandals and the like. --DinsdaleP 22:12, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Dear Dinsdale. I am sure that Conservapedia needs a lot of work to reach its goals. Some of us work hard to get that dream. I personally don't have time to loose. Soon I will start a new novel. But I will give some minutes.

He has been warned 2 times not to delete valuable materials. Sometimes I spend hours searching for them. It is not fair to loose this work just because some one does not care. He also has a nice history of blocks of short time. The only way that I see to stop him is with this kind of blocking.

I hope this is enough. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

After stating what he wanted to change in the article, he was asked to "improve the article" by another sysop (HenryS), which could be interpreted as permission to do so. I would recommend removing the block because it does appear he was given permission. DanH 22:44, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
That was yesterday. I never said anything about these changes [1], the ones Joaquin reverted and he was blocked for. But I think the block is a bit much. HenryS 22:52, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Still, he was told to "improve the article", which means we need to assume good faith here. DanH 22:54, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Before he first edited the article, it was in bad shape. With nasty vandalism and all. HenryS 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clarifying. I still maintain he should not have been blocked for a month, as he was trying to make good faith edits to improve the article and was not trying to push a POV or anything. I also maintain that his block history should not be considered, as most of his blocks have been considered unjust and overturned. DanH 22:57, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. I have not looked at his block log, but after looking at the edits in question I did not see any POV either. Rather than a block he should be encouraged to use talk. I hope Joaquin agrees. HenryS 23:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

He has tried using talk on some of these articles before but simply been told "no, it should stay as it is" without being given a good reason, so I don't quite blame him. But I agree with your suggestion totally, and will try to keep a closer eye on these talk pages. DanH 23:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, guys.
Joaquin, I am curious as to why you think the Pericles image (the only thing I removed) should be on that page, since he isn't mentioned at all except for a link to his page (where the image would belong). I didn't think it should be there, so I removed it and suggested a change you could make if you wanted to re-add it: namely, talking about Pericles somehow on the page. If you think Pericles is important to greek influence on western culture, it would seem reasonable to say why, instead of insisting on just including his image, regardless of how important you personally might think it is. If you spent a long time looking for it, I'm sorry, but that's not really grounds for including it on a page to which it has no relation at the current time. Thank you and I hope you understand my position.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Please respond, Joaquin, so we can resolve this.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I know you've read this by now, Joaquin, since a little message appears at the top reminding you that you have new messages, and you have been on and editing over the past days this has been up here. So presumably you are just ignoring it. That's not very reasonable when I am trying to resolve the issue with this page, so I think if you are on again and editing without responding, it is reasonable for me to re-make my changes. It's not fair you just refuse to discuss it--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:55, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
I am reverting back to my last good version, Joaquin. I still encourage you to discuss it, if you are still interested.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Hey Joaquin, I noticed that despite my many messages here asking for explanation, you have reverted my edit today some days after I made it, without explanation here or on my talk page or on the article's talk page. I would refer you to Conservapedia's Guidelines, which suggest, "Let others know what you are doing, and respond quickly to queries."
Please do me the courtesy of replying, not just reverting without explanation.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
I see you have reverted again. You know a little box pops up when you have a new message, so Im pretty confident you have seen this by now, especially since you have replied to other people here. This is incredibly rude.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 11:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure what I have to do to get you to give me some basic respect as an editor. You won't discuss your edit, you just keep reverting. You just did it again. Why are you so insistent on putting paragraphs in blockquotes when it is needless, rewriting the page to poorer English, and inserting a picture of an Athenian general who is not mentioned in the article?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, here we are again. Joaquin, we need to reach a conclusion about the page. I replied with completeness to your previous response, but you have left the page protected and have not replied to resolve it again. Please do so.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I have nothing else to say. Read carefully my explanation. Amen. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
You didn't say anything to help resolve the conflict. Do you object to my edits still? If so, you need to go back to that page and say why. You don't get to just ignore the discussion. Your power doesn't make you correct; might doesn't make right.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 20:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Tom, it is time to back down from this issue. Joaquin has been a very prolific contributor to Conservapedia who has gone out of his way to avoid the controversial areas that others flock to, including you. Indeed, we owe almost our entire section of artists and artworks to Joaquin. As a man of the arts, his perspectives are different than your practical methodologies. So Pericles, as a symbol of Greece, has the right fit for a picture in the article. Who is to say that is wrong? He doesn't get tied down in the type of incessant debating that you enjoy, and would prefer to simply create. He has incorporated many of the changes that you made, and that is a form of honor to your suggestions. Beyond that, you've drilled this topic as far as you can. Be pleased with the presentations that you've made and that you have been able to express yourself, and be pleased with the information that you have provided that was incorporated into the article, and now move on to other areas where your own skills and knowledge could continue to be beneficial. Learn together 03:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
No. I am not going to do that. I am sorry, LT, but that is wholly unacceptable to me. You would like me to cater to him after the way I have been treated in this matter? Joaquin had blocked me, ignored me, and insulted me. There has not been even the hint of an apology. And now he will be rewarded?
What if I were to go to the absurd author page and rewrite that, and he decided he wanted to put in a picture of Shel Silverstein - even though Shel wasn't in the article? And of course he'd have to put a variety of paragraphs he found elsewhere on the page, in italics and blockquotes. If I protest, he can lock it and just completely ignore me again.He can't abuse me and ignore me and then get entirely his way, just because he is a sysop. That's not right. And if I give an inch, next he'll take a mile.
He accused me of removing important information, and I proceeded to show very clearly that I did not. He accused me of removing images, and I showed very clearly that they are not relevant. And you think it is appropriate for me to just give him his way, ignoring my own thoughts on the matter - why, because he has a background in the arts? I have a master's in English Literature! Compare the two versions of the article!
No, he doesn't get to be right, just because he has power. Not while I am around - although many a sysop would be happy to be rid of me because of my beliefs and forthrightness. But a sysop is just another editor to me. And Joaquin is just another editor.
So I want an apology, and I want him to unlock the article so I can undo his changes. I'm not going to be disruptive, don't worry. I won't spam anything, I won't put anything on the main page, etc. But I am going to request from him every day I am on CP that he do these two things. If he is willing to just ignore people rather than work with them, he can ignore me every day.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Tom you are taking this way too personally and you are making a minor editing difference a major focus. You have to let things go. You've made good edits; that should be your reward. The obsessiveness of this ongoing response far exceeds the importance of the difference. You are being highly disruptive, and that is not something that we can tolerate on this site. At least respect that Joaquin predates you by over a year, and has gone to great pains to avoid editing controversial subjects, and disdains exactly the type of thing that you are trying to force him into. You have now complained on four different talk pages. Your continued efforts to turn up the heat must cease or I will be forced to block you to give you a chance to cool down, not because of your beliefs or forerightness, but because of your "Hillary Clintonish" way of needing to win at all costs. Please consider this carefully. Learn together 20:23, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
He wasn't focused on the minor difference, he was focused on the rightfully major issue that JM rode rough-shod over the entire process. It was only a big deal because a)JM wouldn't see reason and b)sysops like yourself didn't expend 1/10th the energy posting to JM about how he was mistaken that was spent posting to TM about how he was being too sensitive.
You do understand that quality editors who can make substantive, thought-provoking contributions are likely to be thoughtful, inteligent people in general, right? If you only want grade-school contributions then, by all means, treat your editors like grade-schoolers. If you want mature thinking, likewise. Aziraphale 21:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

McCain Revert

The edits I made didn't change the substance of the article. But the term "Democrat" when referring to the party, is considered a pejorative. It's "Democratic party" or "Democratic Senator", not "Democrat Party" and "Democrat Senator". Unless you have a specific reason for going back to the insulting term, I am going to change it back to the proper terms. Thanks! --Jareddr 08:57, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Not so sure, I will ask for help. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
From CP's article on the Democratic Party, "Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats, and historically the party has sometimes been called the "Democrat Party," which the party considers a pejorative term." --Jareddr 09:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

OK. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Can you delete the following categories for me Category:Russian history, Category:Japanese mythology, Category:Religious organizations Category:Byzantine emperors-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Nudity in the muralism article

Since I respect your status here on Wikipedia as a conservative hispanic I would like you to look at and address my current concerns about nudity in your visual example on your article about muralism. See the talk page where I raise my concerns. I actually liked the previous non-controversial example of a mural you used following my initial concerns about bare breasts, but the recent version may have some problems. With all respect, muchas gracias mi amigo! --AdmiralNelson 19:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Joaquin, I applaud your posting of the mural. I believe that Americans are far too sensitive about the human body- it is a sad example of such oversensitivity that non-pornographic images displaying the beauty of the human body have to be censored. I believe the mural is in good taste and CP would do well to include it. -- Aaronp

I'm sorry, but this is CONSERVAPEDIA and not WIKIPEDIA. Please note that Conservapedia Commandment number 3 unambiguously states:

Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.

It is a slippery slope. Once we allow blatantly nude pictures here, where do we stop? Andy espouses home schooling (which I've done with my son) and using Wikipedia I constantly and inadvertently run across inappropriate language and images. That's why I prefer Conservapedia which, ostensibly, pays attention to, and tries to suppress, inadvertent offensive language and images (please re-read Commandment 3 above). If you looked at the original image that I was complaining about it's pretty unambiguous that large and conspicuous breasts were the focus of that picture. Joaquin replaced it with a perfectly appropriate and non-offensive image which still demonstrated the technique of muralism. I'm mystified as to why he subsequently replaced that perfectly inoffensive image with the current one which is, once again, more problematic. Did you click on the links I posted above? Those are images that I retrieved with Google Safe Search set to ON and are totally inappropriate for young children and adolescents, and they are images of sections of the mural Joaquin is currently posting. Frankly, I'm mystified as to why this is an issue at all. Be conservative, be moral, be inoffensive. There are lots of other safe examples of mexican murals that don't cause this problem. Why choose this one? --AdmiralNelson 20:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Nice Masterpiece!

Very nice masterpiece this week! Inspirational indeed. Thank you!--Aschlafly 09:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

You are very welcome, Andy. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:32, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama has a Catholic problem

Joaquín, the Main page article goes to the wrong article "How NOT to Have Electricity". --DeanStalk 14:33, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for fixing the link before someone complained about it on the talk page. --DeanStalk 18:30, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Images

Joaquin, thanks much for your efforts, and you've raised an interesting point about Mexico's copyright law. However, I would expect American copyright law to apply to govern images on this site. Thanks again.--Aschlafly 17:44, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Fine. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:21, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

News suggestions

Joaquín, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on Template:Mainpageright and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --DeanStalk 11:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

OK, I will. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your support. I see you already posted one suggestion. --DeanStalk 18:48, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

WOW

Joaquín, this is gorgeous! ~BethTalk2ME 10:31, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

My pleasure. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:48, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Featured articles

Joaquín, please comment here on my proposed idea to add a category to the past featured articles. --DeanStalk 12:19, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your steady stream of excellent contributions. Every time I look at Recent changes, I look forward to seeing your latest edits! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 12:09, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Thank you! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:11, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Don Quixote

Do you happen to have a picture of Don Quixote? The article could use one, and I don't want to go looking if one's already been uploaded. Thanks--CPalmer 11:59, 17 November 2008 (EST)

We do have one:
Cervantes.jpg


--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 13:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks - I suspected you would be the man to ask.--CPalmer 07:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please create the articles in red

Please use the title of the article throughout the article but please do not overdue it and annoy your readers. Let me know how it works out as far as your http://www.google.com, http://www.yahoo.com/, and http://www.msn.com/ search rankings.

conservative 01:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Great. Thanks. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I suggest removing your present external links for Famous French paintings and use some of the links you find here instead: http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=famous+french+paintings&btnG=Google+Search and http://www.cuil.com/search?q=famous+french+paintings conservative 07:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Famous Art Galleries

Dance

Would you please like to raise your concerns on the talk page where I have clearly outlined the images are not appropriate in the external links section of an article. NormanS 19:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)

A favour, please

Hi Joaquin. Please could you uploadn this http://www.marxistbooks.gr/Marxistbooks%20-%20Greek%20language%20Home%20Page.files/healy_f.jpg if it's fair use to the article Gerry Healy. I've got 'upload' powers but am not sure how to do it. Many thanks, Bugler 09:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Done. Don't forget to protect any image uploaded. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks, Joaquin. I'm following what you do to try and learn. Bugler 10:15, 25 November 2008 (EST)
I think you have to be a sysop to protect the images. That is why I check the upload list periodically and protect the articles made by those with only upload rights. --DeanStalk 16:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Vittu

Is a vandal. Please block him. NormanS 08:20, 27 November 2008 (EST)

He did. Thanks for the tip. --Ed Poor Talk 08:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Literature

Joaquín, I just saw how much you've added to the Literature article. Fantastic job! -Foxtrot 17:15, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Good to see more work in literary pages! Joaquin, if you'd be able to upload title/cover pages from the various book articles I've made, it'd be great. I'd love to add them to the pages. - Rod Weathers 18:22, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A vicarious favour, please

G'day, Joaquín. Please see the request from Bugler at Category talk:Image‎. It concerns the article Goole. Can you do the right thing please? AlanE 13:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks mate. AlanE 17:01, 28 November 2008 (EST)
My pleasure. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Famous Groups?

I have a question about the Famous American Artists/Musicians page. I'm wondering what to do about folks who are partly or more famous as part of a group instead of as an individual. Do you want to include groups in the Artists/Musicians pages, or start a separate Famous Groups page? (Also, fyi, I'm hoping to find time this weekend to start knocking out some of the red links on the Musicians page)--RossC 18:53, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Excellent, good luck! Please could you ask my advisor (A) about technical questions? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Block request

Any chance you could block Jesussaves88? He/she keeps creating offensive and, I believe, non-factual articles. Muchas gracias, mi amigo.--CPalmer 18:16, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, no importa, ya se lo hizo.--CPalmer 18:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Falkland Islands

I noticed that you had edited the Falkland Islands article so that it stated that the islands are correctly known as the Malvinas. I do not believe that is correct so I reverted the edit to the previous version which had a sentence at the bottom of the paragraph which said that the Argentines referred to them as the Islas Malvinas, but Aschlafly reverted it back to your version and suggested I talk to you. So here I am. --TCochrane 18:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

  • If Joaquín isn't around, I feel certain he would tell you to include both names, as in Latin America they do refer to them as the Malvinas, but in the English-speaking world they are called the Falklands. Just note that part of that poor, wind-blown island's history of dispute includes its name. Residents there, being UK expatriates, call it the Falklands. --₮K/Talk 18:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Logo policy

Joaquin, what's CP's policy on the addition of logos to articles? Most company/sports team articles are logoless :( JY23 18:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I am afraid I don't have a good answer. Please contact TK. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)
OK, will do. JY23 19:02, 5 December 2008 (EST)
  • I left the answer on my talk page, Joaquín and JY23. --₮K/Talk! 20:11, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Photo

Joaquin, that's a terrific photo of the Frank Gehry building, but it's copyrighted so we rather not use it and rely on "fair use doctrine." I'll look for a public domain version, unless you have consent for the photo you uploaded.--Aschlafly 10:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Ok, I will take it out. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)
I just found a public domain version, and I think it is even better anyway: Frank Gehry Walt Disney Concert Hall.jpg. Thanks!--Aschlafly 11:00, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Joaquín_Martínez/archive6&oldid=621004"