User talk:Grancafé

Welcome!

Hello, Grancafé, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your valuable help and advice! --Grancafé (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Article

Ospina Coffee Company is the world’s oldest purveyor of premium coffee, founded in Colombia, South America, by Don Mariano Ospina Rodríguez [1] in 1835.

Don Mariano Ospina Rodríguez was one of Colombia's earliest and most profoundly influential coffee pioneers, with an entrepreneurial spirit and tenacity. He began his quest in 1835, seeking the best lands and terroir for growing coffee within the lush mountains of the province of Antioquia. He established his first coffee plantation there, on the volcanic slopes of Fredonia, Antioquia, where he pursued coffee growing with passion and a scientific interest. As a result of Don Mariano's careful investigations and studies, Colombia began producing some of the best coffees in the world, the Coffea arabica species.

Also an educator, journalist, lawyer, political leader and a statesman, Don Mariano was one of the founders of the Colombian Conservative Party [2] in 1849.[1] He was elected to Congress in 1850 and later, in 1854, he was elected Governor of the State of Antioquia. A few years later, in 1857 he was elected as the 12th President of Colombia [3]. After his presidency, he expanded his coffee enterprise to Guatemala in 1865, and in so doing became one of the first coffee growing pioneers in Central America.

With his vast experience and knowledge about the cultivation of coffee, he devoted himself to promoting and teaching the growing of coffee to the farmers and peasants of Colombia. In 1880 he established the first public University in Colombia (Universidad de Minas) and published his first textbooks about “efficient and effective coffee growing techniques". The nation profited richly from Don Mariano's efforts, research and teachings. His passion, knowledge, vision, tenacity and hard labor facilitated the development of coffee growing into Colombia's main export crop, transforming forever the nation’s economy.

General Pedro Nel Ospina [4], son of Don Mariano Ospina Rodríguez, furthered the Ospina Coffee family tradition and worked arduously to improve and expand the family’s coffee business and plantations. In 1910 he was appointed Ambassador of Colombia to the United States and thereafter to Belgium. Upon his return to the country, he was elected to congress and later as Governor of Antioquia. Later, in 1922, he was elected as Colombia's 36th President[5]During his administration, he organized the Departments of Education, Health and the Treasury. He created el Banco de la República[6](the Central Bank of Colombia) and advanced critical public works, such as the main national highways and railways systems, dams and bridges, and the crude oil pipelines connecting the mayor oil-fields to the sea ports.[1]

Don Mariano Ospina Vásquez and Don Tulio Ospina Vásquez, both sons of Don Mariano Ospina Rodríguez, in 1918 summoned the First National Committee of Coffee Growers in Medellín, Antioquia. Don Mariano Ospina Vásquez presided over this First National Committee of Coffee Growers, whose main objective was to prepare the foundational ground and formulate the programs and policies to be enacted by the First National Congress of Coffee Growers.

In 1920, the First National Congress of Coffee Growers convened in Bogotá, presided over by Epifánio Montoya, Alfredo Vásquez Cobo and Don Tulio Ospina Vásquez. This congress laid the foundation for the successful organization of the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia[7] (English: National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia). [8] The Second National Congress of Coffee Growers convened in Medellín in 1927. Two sons of Don Tulio Ospina Vásquez, Rafael Ospina Pérez and Mariano Ospina Pérez [9], were among the representatives of the province of Antioquia to this Second National Congress. As a result of this Congress, the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia, was created, with Mariano Ospina Pérez as one of its founding fathers.

Mariano Ospina Pérez, [10] grandson of Mariano Ospina Rodríguez, not only was one of the founders of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia, but was later elected as General Director of the Coffee Federation, and served in such capacity from 1930 to 1934. His main objective was to assist, finance, and educate the coffee growers while implementing an aggressive program to penetrate the world market and to successfully capture a substantial share of it.

Under Mariano Ospina Pérez' [11] aegis, the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia successfully consolidated the nation's coffee industry and promoted it in the world markets to great effect. Colombia became the largest producer of prime Coffea arabica coffee in the world. He laid a very solid corporative foundation, and today, the Colombian Coffee Federation congregates and supports over 500,000 independent coffee growers and small farmers.

Mariano Ospina Pérez was elected as the 43rd President of Colombia [12] in 1946.[1] During his administration, Colombia reached the highest level of coffee exports in number of bags and as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP). He was determined to fortify the nation's infrastructure and created Ecopetrol [13] (Colombian Petroleum Company) and Acerias Paz del Río (the country's largest steel mill). He was also committed to social responsibility and, to that effect, he created a financial institution (La Caja Agraria), the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor to help meet the credit, educational and social needs of blue collar workers, coffee growers, and other small farmers and peasants.

Today, Ospina Coffee Company, the world’s oldest family owned coffee company and purveyor of premium coffee, is the cumulative achievement of five generations of passionate coffee lovers, enthusiast and visionaries. The Company produces five unique "elite coffees", Premier Grand Cru[14] Classé Coffee, Ospina Gran Café, Ospina Presidential Coffee, Ospina Estate Coffee, and Ospina Bambuco Coffee. The prestigious luxury living publication the Robb Report has bestowed the Ospina Coffee Company with The Best of The Best award.

The motto of Ospina Coffee Company states: “Our unique Ospina coffee beans, despite their enviable lineage, were not simply born into distinction, they struggled to attain it!” --Grancafé 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your First Barnstar

The Welcome Barnstar

This barnstar is given to Grancafe, for his impressive efforts in learning how to build a fine encyclopedia. I hope you continue to edit here. Ikip 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Notes

Thanks For The Barnstar!

And congratulations on keeping your article! Doc Quintana (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank You. Thanks for the barnstar! Mucho gracias! Keep up the good fight, kind of busy now. I am proud of how far you have come. Many new editors are chewed up and spit out... Okip BLP Contest 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are giving me a big head, comparing me to Galieo :) I read an incredible book about him, and let me tell you, I am no Galieo. :) But thanks. You have been wonderful. Watch out for the wolves, and reach out to people, even though wikipedia is officially not a social networking site, it really is.
thank editors every chance you get. Okip BLP Contest 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important & Special Pages

Sandbox page

User:Grancafé/Sandbox

Test page

Also, you tend to delete a lot of your page doing experiments, go ahead and do the experiments here:

User:Grancafe/test

instead... thanks. Ikip 03:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special contacts

User:Maedin / User talk:Maedin

User talk:Doc Quintana

User talk:Ikip

User Talk:Coffee

User talk:Jerem43

User talk:Mijotoba

User:Jujutacular / User talk:Jujutacular

User:ThaddeusB

Special pages

Template talk:Did you know

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2010

Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 23

Article Incubator Banner

{{WPAI}}

Sources and Neutrality

Please help edit and source per reliable sources that are accessible (i.e. English), can be easily checked or verified, don't violate copyright (i.e. article text copied by nn websites), and aren't promotional shorts or overly dependent on primary sources (such as books). Flowanda | Talk 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When providing sources about a subject that is not inherently English, such as this one, and said sources meet the standards for reliable sources they can be used. There is no accessibility requirement in the reliable sources policy nor is there a requirement that sources be in English. Your claim that the sources are not valid because they are not in English is spurious at best, being in Spanish does make them any less unreliable. If you wish to verify them, try Google translate, it does an excellent job of translating page in a language other than English. Instead of challenging the sources based upon their original language, could you please present valid policy based reason that would support your position?
Remember, (from WP:COI) Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, now there is obviously more to the policy but the main contributor seems to have taken the proper steps outlined in that policy to insure that the article has been redone so that it is neutral. As this article stands now, the author has gone out of his way to insure the subject is correctly cited and that it meets the standards for inclusion. He seems to have negated any conflict of interest issue by writing an article that easily meets the standards of neutrality and asking others to review it so that it is properly formatted, constructed and written. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On That Other Section

You can put it back if you want, but I think the key would to be making it about the company rather than the family or the Columbian Coffee Growers Association, since those are two different topics. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do to connect those other two topics to the company itself, and i'll talk to the other editor and try to find an appropriate task force as well.
I'll read up on what you put there and see what I can find elsewhere, but in the meantime what can you tell me about those other two topics through the lens of the company itself? Doc Quintana (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making COI edits now

You have a stated conflict of interest, over 700 edits in the two months you've been an editor and numerous requests to numerous editors soliciting support for your edits and point of view. You have been around long enough to know your edits clearly violate WP:COI. Flowanda | Talk 08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? Does it mean I am disqualified to write about the subject matters that I know best and which I am the most qualified authority? To whom do I appeal this charge? Would it be possible to find a Task Force to review this case from an independent and neutral point of view? Please tell me how to further this appeal to a higher body. Thanks for your help, advise and cooperation. Best, --Grancafé (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have the consideration for us not, at this late date, to still be acting surprised and flustered by all this, as though policy and guidelines haven't already been given to you before and as though you haven't had plenty of time to follow all the links that have been given to you time and time again so you could read up on all the relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:No original research, WP:PROMOTION, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and WP:Reliable sources.
Wikipedia is not a primary source. This is not the place for anyone, including "qualified authorities", to publish original material. There is no basis for an appeal. You have an obvious conflict of interest, and while many have explained to you that that isn't an automatic bar to your writing a neutral article that conforms to the rules, you have not done so, and now you're acting upset that you're expected to. At the outset I was really, really helpful to you, and went over the issues with your article not only after your original posting, but again after you had restored material that had been deleted for the reasons I had already explained to you. You responded in a manner that indicated you understood and accepted what I had told you and that you were interested in writing the article so that it met Wikipedia's standards, but then you proceeded to ignore everything I'd said. I've also watched you do the same as several other people have come through and edited down your article and tried to explain everything to you. This has been going on for almost six weeks. I'm sorry, but you've exhausted my sympathy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Talk To Flowanda

He's right to a point, even if you are the primary expert on the subject, a neutral point of view is required (basically meaning that article would sound the same if it was written by you or if it was written by someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the company).

It can't be an advertisement, the article must sound as though it would be something you'd find in Encyclopedia Brittanica. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Let's Have a Proper Forum to discuss these Issues

Thank you very much for all your advice, guidance, help, efforts and recommendations. I do NOT wish to have any sort of altercation or confrontation. I have tried to make my contributions based on historical facts and information available in the public domain. I have not posted my own words, thoughts or opinions. They are mere historical and undeniable facts, taken from reliable and accessible sources, mainly History books and industry publications. I know that most of these sources are in Spanish, and thus, I have offered to present copies or pdfs of the same for review. Nevertheless, there are some pretty good and reliable sources in English as well. I may not have quoted or referenced them perfectly, but they are there, accessible, reliable and easy to find and read. I have also requested several individual editors, groups and task forces to review and proof-read the article. I am not insisting or pushing for biased thoughts, ideas or opinions. I am only interested in facts and neutral and truthful information. This is precisely why I have insistently asked for help and invited contributions and editors to participate in the discussion and project. What I do not appreciate is the unfounded and unjustified mutilation of the article. I welcome, invite and ask for independent, neutral and experienced editing help, specifically from those from academia, historians and well versed editors. I apologize if my level of writing, contribution and editing is not at your same level. I would like to take these issues to the proper forum for discussion and resolution. Thank you very much. --Grancafé (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides everything else, it has become extremely aggravating that you have diverse copies of your article or large parts of it written all over the place, and that you carrying on the same conversations in two different places. I have just responded to the same complaint as the one above at Ospina Coffee Company#Let.27s_Have_a_Proper_Forum_discuss_these_Issues. As for your exhortation to "have a proper forum", I don't know what you mean. The article's talk page is the proper forum. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Furthermore, Flowanda and Largoplazo have deleted much of the article on the grounds of digression. You might have your point of view, certainly different than mine. I am not advocating a narrow view, but rather a broad and deep view. For example, if one is writing an article about Harvard University, I find it most appropriate to analyze and describe the impact that its teachings have had upon the multitude of world leaders that have studied there. Alumni such as Philip W. Anderson, T. S. Eliot, Walter Gilbert, Al Gore and Henry Kissinger, just to mention a few. To write about its alumni is not a digression, to the contrary, it is a comprehensive and holistic and imperative task. And this is why I have suggested reintroducing the whole section on the Colombian Coffee Federation under the caption of “Impact on the Colombian Coffee Industry”. I think it is not only right and just, but fundamental and essential to a proper article of notability. Thanks again. --Grancafé (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents
Don't get frustrated, we're trying to help. Lets keep the conversation here for now. I have read your articles and they are very well written, neutral and seem to be avoiding conflict of interest issues that you possibly have.

Addressing your concerns:

  1. Spanish sources - they are allowed, you just need to not that they are in Spanish when you cite a passage. An easy way to do this would be to add the {{es}} template, which gives you (in Spanish), to the end of your citations. If you can, try to include some English language sources to make them more accessible.
  2. Image use - there are very strict rules regarding the usage of logos and other trademarked images. When you use a file that is fair use you must add a fair use rationale to the image page. There are several different templates you can use, and if you need help choosing just ask.
  3. Questions or comments to other editors. If you have a question about a piece of text in an article or comment on your user page just post the question with a link to the passage you wish to discuss. To create a link to a specific section on a page you would use a wiki-link formatted like this: [[page name#section]]. Example - If you wished to link to this section of your talk page you would format the link like this [[User talk:Grancafe#Let's Have a Proper Forum discuss these Issues]] which would appear as User talk:Grancafe#Let's Have a Proper Forum discuss these Issues
  4. Discussions - try to keep discussion located on one page, preferably on the one in which the discussion began. Most likely the person you are talking with is monitoring the page as well.

I hope this helps, --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Dispute Resolution

There is no conflict of interest here. That is your misguided opinion. My utmost interest is the truth and the undisputed, undeniable and well referenced historical facts. The interest of Wikipedia, academia end the community are above your interest or mine. This is why I have insistently invited other well versed and trained editors to participate in this project. I truly believe that we must invite community members from academia, scholars, historians, economist and sociologist to participate in this discussion. Do you think it is time to take this matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s continue our dialog

I thank all of you for your patience, understanding, zealousness, good faith and endurance. Regarding the article on Ospina Coffee Company, I suggest that we continue our dialog, like Jeremy and LargoPlazo have so requested, in one page, which I consider to be Talk:Ospina Coffee Company the most appropriate. If this is not the correct page, I have no objection to doing so in another one. Thank you very much. --Grancafé (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Ospina Coffee Company, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. This refers to your removal of User:Mijotoba's comments. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo León Valencia and other Presidents

Hi, I noticed that you have taken an interest in editing some of the articles on the Presidents of Colombia and have made some edits that have gotten my attention. In Guillermo León Valencia you have made edits on the basis of "aesthetics", failing to notice that the way it was before fell within wikipedia's standards for biographies per Wikipedia's MOS - Biographies hence the introduction:

"Guillermo León Valencia Muñóz (April 27, 1909–November 4, 1971) was the President of Colombia from August 7, 1962 to August 7, 1966 and was a member of the Conservative Party."

was well within the norm. Another thing you should watch out for is on your prolific use of boldface, as per Wikindia:Boldface states that it should only be used on rare occasions and every time the name "Valencia" appears is not a good use of boldface.

Make sure to avoid using standalone lines of information like:

"The son of poet Guillermo Valencia (who unsuccessfully ran for president twice)."

This information has already been supplied in the infobox and adding it once again in the main body of the article with no additional surrounding information is redundant, even if you added the "(who unsuccessfully ran for president twice)" that did not add anything in the content or context of the article, but rather references his father's article. I'm not saying that this should not be part of the article, but that it should be part of a bigger more concise paragraph that talks about the background of his family and his upbringing and not merely on what his father has or has not done. In another case, Bartolomé Calvo another standalone line:

"He was married to Isidora Martí[2]."

This fact has already been addressed in the infobox, and the source could have been attached to the "|spouse=" paramenter and referenced in the "|footnotes=" parameter as well, making the article cleaner and clearer. I think you did not actually do this so nevermind.mijotoba (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been warned, and I have already mentioned to you in another talk about weasel words, and about being careful with the use of Colombian sources, In Manuel María Mallarino, you added a sourced information that I imagine was taken verbatim from Arismendi Posada's work:

"This talents would greatly help him as MP.[3]"

The fact of the matter is that we do not know this for sure, and yes, that he was an able lawyer and orator may have helped, but "talents" and "greatly" are assumptions that should be left out. (not to mention that he was NOT a Member of Parliament as Colombia does not have a Parliament but rather a Congress and that would make him a Congressman (or alternatively Congressperson), having this in the article would confuse non-Colombian readers and give the impression that Colombia is under a Westminster system. And not to mention either the use of boldface dotted around)

In yet another article, José María Obando, you have used various references when you are only using one source, wasting time and space in the article and making it seems repetitive and one-sided. I make note of this not because is such a big deal, because is not per se, but the fact that User:Ikip talked to you on January 28 about How to do citing and you have just started working on this yesterday (February 14) is of concern, another user has taken time and effort to show you how to properly source and you have dismissed it and gone ahead and cite in an unprofessional manner, please be aware of this, Wikipedia is full of helpful people who are here to help you but you need to take note of their advice and follow it, also read Wikipedia:Citing sources and use other tools for sources such as Google books.

In another note I noticed you changed the order of some of the presidents of Colombia (e.j: 21st President of Colombia), please take in mind that the order is done on chronological order in accordance to the country at the time, hence, Bartolome Calvo was the "2nd President of the Granadine Confederation" and not the "15th President of Colombia" (if you were to add his presidency as one of the many presidents our currently convoluted republic has had), this is a reference to Leon Valencia being now the "48th President of Colombia", an order that in theory has not yet been obtained since Uribe is technically our "39th President".

What worries me the most is that you have probably have edited more articles this way on more Presidents of Colombia, it is better to have a [stub] than a now disputed article such as Pedro Nel Ospina.

And please don't hate me for all of the above, I have learned the hard way, and these group of core articles such as the Presidents of Colombia are of great importance to WikiProject Colombia and I am happy that someone is taking an interest in expanding them as I haven't had the opportunity or will to do it. mijotoba (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice

Thank you very much for your detailed and extensive observations. I do appreciate any positive and constructive comments, recommendations and advice. I do not appreciate belligerent, insidious and false accusations. If your intentions are for a positive and constructive dialog, I will be more than happy to work with you. Otherwise, I have no desire or time for futile arguments. I am not saying that your comments are disingenuous or inappropriate. To the contrary, I find them very useful and helpful. I am just outlining what I consider to be appropriate and cordial rules of engagement for a constructive dialog, which in the end will greatly benefit Wikipedia, wikipedian editors and the public.

Now, let me respond to you in the same order. Regarding the use of the term “aesthetics”, I use it to denote “a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty”, which simply means an edit of cleanup and organization and order for a better overall look. Nothing to do with philosophical ideas or historical facts. Perhaps I need to change it to “esthetics”. [One is the British spelling, the other is the U.S. spelling. That's the only difference. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I guess I should use the word "tidying" instead. Would that sound better to you? --Grancafé (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the list of Presidents of Colombia, I am going by the broader term used by Ignacio Arismendi Posada. If you find this objectable and inaccurate, I will abstain from making such edits and corrections.

As to the standalone lines of "The son of poet Guillermo Valencia (who unsuccessfully ran for president twice)", it was already there, before I did any editing.

As a whole, you very well know that most of the biographies of the Presidents of Colombia, as they are NOW, they are simply stubs with no references whatsoever. What is already there, I try not to change, alter or modify. Only if the information is erroneous, inaccurate or incorrect will I change it.

As to the referencing process and the use of repetitious references, you are absolutely right. The problem is that I do not know how to perfect this referencing. Yes, Ikip (now Okip) has tried to guide and teach me in this regard, but I am cyber phobic and can’t get it. If you could teach me how to do so, I will highly appreciate it. I am willing to learn.

As to the use of superlatives, weasel words, and boldface I will be most careful and attentive. You very well know that our Latin literature style of writing is very florid, embellished and poetic. Thus, I will be very careful to sift out all this baroque, ornate and grandiloquent Latin expressions.

In regards to “What worries me the most is that you have probably have edited more articles this way on more Presidents of Colombia, it is better to have a [stub] than a now disputed article such as Pedro Nel Ospina”, I think this is subjective, slanted and opinionated. I personally think that it is much better to have a well written and well referenced article than simply a meaningless stub. I don’t want to get into an argument about this. If you know of a well versed and reputed historian or scholar editor, I would like his or her opinion before we get into a debate.

On a final note, I do appreciate very much your constructive observations and recommendations. I look forward to further guidance and teachings, and I also look forward to working with you to better enhance and complete the WikiProject Colombia. If there is any other way I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you very much for your help and advice. I truly appreciate your insight and experience. Best regards, --Grancafé (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Gobernantes Colombianos, Ignacio Arismendi Posada, Interprint Editors Ltd., Italgraf, Segunda Edición, Bogotá, Colombia, 1983

You don't get to work it both ways

You're either a novice or you're not. Choose. Flowanda | Talk 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute assistance request

This notice was posted on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.

I feel that I am being harassed and bullied by some editors, mainly Flowanda. Accusing me falsely and carrying on a campaign of tagging my articles with “conflict of interest” notes. I have had issues with other editors, such as Largo Plazo and Mijotoba, but I believe we were able to solve the issues in a civilized, well discussed and somewhat cordial manner.
With Flowanda I have extensively tried to reason, discuss and negotiate, to no avail. Her last posting, today at 7:25, on my User talk:Grancafé, I find it to be inappropriate, uncalled for and a clear sign of provocation. I have avoided any arguments or confrontations, but she simply won’t let go. Thus, I feel that I must initiate a Dispute Resolution Request, to have a third neutral party look into this matter. I must request a revision of all the deletions that she has made to my articles, and more specifically, I need to get her of my back. Her constant harassment makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I thank you in advance for you valuable help, prompt assistance and kind advice. --Grancafé (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reasoning and argument

In furtherance to my defense, I would like to quote the following COI guidelines:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, Which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."

As a member of the Ospina family and business, I can provide references which are compatible with the notable and verifiable guidelines that others may not be aware of. I want to make sure that the articles I work on meet and exceed all Wikipedia guidelines, and I welcome the different views of others to make my contributions more encyclopedic.

I have met this requirement of the COI guidelines:

"Editors with COIS are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. "

I ask that all editors:

Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.
All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy.
Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are Closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.
Wikipedia: Vested interest states: "This does not mean such editors' arguments should be dismissed as ARISING from a Wikipedia: Conflict of interest."

I think I have complied to the best of my ability to be fair, neutral and objective. I want to continue to work with editors and make these articles as encyclopedic as possible. I appreciate the continued "close review by the community to identify any subtle bias". That said, please remember what it was like to be a new editor, and have patience with me. Thanks again, --Grancafé (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. According to Wikipedia’s own definition of conflict of interest ,(COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. My aims and goals are, by no means, in opposition to Wikipedia's nature, principles, rules or procedures. I have reiterated my alliance to these rules and principles. Thus, I do not see how a “conflict of interest” accusation could be substantiated against me. Thank you. --Grancafé (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.
A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. --Grancafé (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many times are you going to raise the same gripe when it has already been answered in detail many times? If your purpose here is to lay out an exposition for new reviewers whom you are inviting to evaluate the situation, I have to note how unfortunate it is that you have seen fit, in the meantime, to repeatedly delete the earlier conversations that have been held with you, making it difficult for newly involved persons to become familiar with the history of the situation that you are asking them to review. Basically, you're asking them to look at the record after you've erased the parts you don't like. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that, I can't for the life of me figure out why you think it's so horrible that the material you've written on subjects where at least the possibility of a conflict of interest is apparent should be so marked. Are you trying to hide? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to hide what or where? I don’t understand your posting. I am totally honest, clear, transparent, objective and neutral. If you feel so irritated by my cleaning and editing this user talk page, please feel free to bring back whatever you consider missing, relevant and necessary. I am sure this is not an impossible task. I do appreciate transparency, completeness and wholeness. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are complaining that your articles are being tagged "COI". You are begging to have these removed, despite the fact that you have a COI with respect to their topics. How is this consistent with being totally honest, clear, transparent, objective and neutral? If I am mistaken and this is not what you're asking for, then what in the world is it that you are asking to have reviewed?????? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am not asking for any tag to be removed, (although I would like so). All I am asking for is for a high rank administrator to settle this dispute about COI. If Wikipedia administrator wants to call it a COI, then so be it. I just don’t feel you are capacitated to make this call. I have tried to explain my reasoning and understanding of the matter, but if it is a “definition” issue, I am willing to accept it, drop the case and move on. Simple as that. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not asking for any tag to be removed, then what is it you expect to be the outcome of this review? In what way is asking for this review after having deleted all, or at least most, previous discussions on this page on the topic consistent with being clear and transparent, as you claim yourself to be? How can you have a user page that reads like this and then plead in good faith that you have no conflict of interest when you write about topics with which you have professed your pride in being associated?
I am going to repeat here, and I hope that you will, in good faith, leave it here, that you have many times added, and readded, and re-readded subjective, laudatory, preening comments about the people about whom you have written, despite having been told on several occasions what was wrong with them. This went on over a period of six weeks. This is important background information that anyone reading your current claims that you desire nothing more than to write objectively on these topics is entitled to know. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests page:

Once again, thank you. I appreciate your comment on COI. My understanding is that an editor may have a vested interest, but as long as he or she can yield to and abide by fundamental principles of Wikipedia, there is no conflict of interest. I might be wrong in my interpretation of terms and I am not trying to change anything. Now, regarding on working with other editors on a collaborative effort, I think I have demonstrated so. I am willing to learn and be part of the team. What I do not appreciate is false accusations, misguided comments and belligerent interaction. I try to be very cordial, respectful and civilized. I am sure my track record of editing clearly reflects this. All I have asked these editors to do is to advice with cordiality and understanding, and to tone down their belligerent tone. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
All I am asking for is that you (A Knight Who Says Ni) or a high ranking administrator to settle this dispute about COI. If Wikipedia administrators want to call it a COI, then so be it. I have tried to explain my reasoning and understanding of the matter, but if it is a “definition” issue, I am willing to accept it, drop the case and move on. Simple as that. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertent Mistakes

FYI. I have made a few inadvertent mistakes. I apologize for any inconvenience. --Grancafé (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert logged out edits?

Would it be possible to revert all the edits made by IP 174.96.140.72, such as [(06:00, 20 February 2010 174.96.140.72 (talk) (4,317 bytes) (→History: aesthetics) (undo)], to my user name Grancafé? Sometimes I forget to log in and sometimes my computer logs me out without I noticing it. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean attribute the IP's edits to your username? This is no longer possible. See Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. If you want, you could mention on your userpage that the IP is yours. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request at WP:RSN

I posted a request for help at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Flowanda | Talk 07:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impropriety and harassment help request

I have been very patient, calm, cordial, tolerant and responsive to a couple of editors that have unleashed an unnecessary campaign of harassment, intimidation and bullying. I have tried civility, dialog and reasoning with both of them, to no avail. I have asked several other editors, repeatedly, for guidance, advice and help. I have posted signs and notes requesting cooperation and assistance from the community. The immense majority of my edits (99.99%) are direct and accurate translations from Spanish sources. Most of my edits (99.99%) are neutral, objective, notable, verifiable, reliably sourced. Most editors that have reviewed my edits support and approve of my work. Unfortunately, these two editors do not appreciate or like the Latin literary style. I have begged and implored for a qualified and well versed panel of Historians, scholars or social science professionals to look into and review my edits. I have tried in good faith to have a civilized dialog and come to terms with these editors, to no avail. It seems that they might have an ulterior motive for their irrational and hostile behavior. For some undisclosed reason, this editor Flowanda, is persistent in attacking, harassing and provoking me. I have shown restrain, civility and respect, to no avail. Her direct and bold attack on my talk page on February 19, 2010, at 7:25, was completely out of place. I posted an inquiry on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to seek advice on how to handle her harassment, attacks and bully tactics of intimidation. On February 14, 2010, at 18:00, I had asked editor Fl (User talk:fl)for help and advice as how to handle this harassment. She advised to post a complaint on WP:ANI, and this is exactly what I am doing now. I need your help now. This impropriety needs to stop! Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Grancafé. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Ani#Impropriety_and_harassment_help_request.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
"Unfortunately, these two editors do not appreciate or like the Latin literary style." To summarize and supplement what I said the last time you brought this up:
  1. Nobody but you has brought up the topic of "Latin literary style".
  2. You have no basis for your remark, which at least in my case is patently false, and you have no business misrepresenting my motivations in that way.
  3. Your implication that my objections are based on personal taste is misguided. They are based on Wikipedia's guidelines.
  4. Your implication that your ethnicity makes it a burden for you to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and that it entitles you to an exemption from them is repugnant.
  5. Wikipedia contributors of many ethnicities write with a variety of styles in different mediums and forums. Most of them manage, and they are all expected, to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines when they write for Wikipedia.
—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against EdJohnston

Your accusations against EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are highly inappropriate and border on a personal attack. Judging by that interaction, I can see why you might be having problems interacting with other users including Flowanda (talk · contribs). I strongly recommend you examine your own actions much more thoroughly and avoid making accusations against other editors. We have a policy against personal attacks and continued behavior like this may lead to you being blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Dispute Resolution

I posted a notice of “Impropriety and harassment help request” on the WP:ANI, as editor Fl (User talk:fl) had suggested and advised. I strictly complained about the harassment and impropriety of Flowanda. The case was closed without addressing the issue or resolving my complaint. It seems that Flowand has friends that can close complaints without properly and fairly addressing, reviewing or resolving them. Should I take this matter to Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution? Would it be advisable and judicious to ask for a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution request (WP:DRR)? Or does she have friends up there as well? --Grancafé (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really unfortunate that your reaction to your failure to find sympathy in a new forum is that Flowanda must have friends there. You are so certain that you are on the side of right that you can't imagine people would genuinely disagree with you.
The problem may be that you haven't made it clear what you mean by "impropriety and harassment". It seems that what you are calling "impropriety and harassment" consists of posting COI tags on articles where you have a COI and editing text you have written to bring it into conformity with Wikipedia's guidelines. If those are the actions to which you are referring, then they are going to keep happening for as long as you make substantial contributions that involve a potential COI on your part or that are inconsistent with the guidelines. That isn't harassment, that's normal procedure. The only solution is to refrain from writing on subjects with which you have a COI, and to be more careful that your contributions fall within guidelines (as opposed to what you wish the guidelines would be).
If those aren't the actions to which you are referring, then you have failed to explain which actions you are referring to (besides that one remark of Flowanda's that you considered an attack, but I agree with the person who said that it wasn't; it was a scolding, but a mild one that was in proportion to your continuing protests of being a novice). So you should forgive anyone who thought you were just complaining about the COI tagging and the edits all over again because you haven't given anyone any reason for thinking otherwise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for addressing my complaint in a more rational, cordial and open minded manner. And I truly appreciate and welcome your les belligerent tone.
Regarding my complaint, I think I was very clear when I responded to Toddst1’s request for WP:Diffs on 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC). I specifically said: see Item 15, “You don't get to work it both ways”.
Thus, there was no “forum shopping” for the “conflict of interest” (COI) issue, which in my opinion hasn’t been addressed either.
Regarding the issue of COI, I have clearly stated my reasoning and understanding. The response I have received is: "there is COI, like or not”. I don’t think this is civilized and rational discussion.
So moving forward, if you would like to further discuss both or either issues, I will be more than happy to to hold a discussion with you or anyone one else, as long as we agree on the wiki etiquette rules of engagement. You very well know that I have begged for a proper forum of discussion. I hope we can accomplish this in a civilized and cordial manner. --Grancafé (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that you're going to Dispute Resolution because Flowanda said one thing to you that you've decided to construe as an attack (even though I and one other person so far have expressed the opinion that we don't see it as one). Where in that one remark does a dispute lie, and what do you think a resolution would consist of?
I'm sorry that you don't see an explanation of a fact as a "civilized and rational" discussion. I suppose that if you held up an orange and told me it was an apple and I said, "No, it's an orange," then you would paraphrase my remark as "No, it's an orange, like it or not," and complain that that my response neither rational nor civilized. If the term "COI" means anything, you have one with respect to the Ospinas and the family's coffee company. You have already been told that this doesn't prevent you from contributing, only that you need to be extra careful. But it remains a fact, and as I've said before, I can't imagine why you object to having this fact pointed out, especially when you've expressed your close association with such pride. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing: continued canvasssing/forum shopping after discussion on ANI, continued unfounded allegations against other editors [1] [2] and not heeding WP:Consensus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal request

{{unblock|I think I was blocked because I was seeking advice on proceeding with a dispute resolution process to resolve my unresolved help request posted on WP:ANI. I find it unfair, unfounded and vindictive. My complaint was hurriedly closed without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. There was no consensus, just a one side hammering. Many other editors, such as Doc Quintana, Jeremy and Okip, have reviewed my work and they approve and support it. My understanding of consensus is when BOTH parties have reached an understanding and agreement. Not just the agreement of one side or party. There was NO consensus, as no fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached. Why not give other editors a fair chance to express their opinion. There is NO forum shopping in my complaint. I was simply and clearly referring to the harassment and impropriety of Flowanda. The discussion was side tracked and derailed, under the misrepresentation of “forum shopping” and “conflict of interest” editing. The issue of harassment was never addressed, discussed or resolved! Please review my original complaint, my editing history and the merits of this request. Thanks.}}

See comment below re: offer of unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

promise to cease accusations. Editor will be reblocked upon continued false allegations of wrongdoing. Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Dispute Resolution

Yeah, that's a good idea. Stay away from the administrators though unless you've exhausted all other options (I think they're talking about WP:CANVASS). Doc Quintana (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check out WP:OWN. You have to be careful on here. You can counterbalance WP:COI as long as you follow WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:NPOV as though someone other than you wrote that article. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc. As you know, I first tried reasoning with the editors, and it didn’t work. Then I posted an advice request on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests page, and that didn’t work either. Then, yesterday I posted a help request on WP:ANI, which went no were. And this morning I got blocked for seeking advice on the advisability, validity and judiciousness of proceeding with a “dispute resolution”. What is the difference here? Aren’t they all administrators? If I got blocked just for seeking advice, what would happen if I actually request a formal dispute resolution (WP:DRR)? --Grancafé (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the canvassing article, where it says that: Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive. Why would I be accused of canvassing, if when I asked for your advice, the WP:ANI help request case was already closed? I don’t understand! --Grancafé (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:COI, I think I have followed the guidelines of WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:NPOV pretty well. --Grancafé (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't understand either. Wikipedia can be frustrating at times, and sometimes you have to let people who are less knowledgable than you about a subject write over your work. It takes alot of patience, and I commend you for dealing with and and trying to learn it as well as dealing with me saying the same thing over and over again.

I would go for a DRR as well as an RFC if it's needed, and sometimes i'd suggest to just let little stuff go if you don't want alot of aggrevation.

As for what I was talking about, I think they sum it up at WP:SHOT. You are not a vandal or a troublemaker as far as I can see, but they see so many incidents that they're jaded in my opinion.Doc Quintana (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc is right: WP:SHOT applies here. I'll be glad to unblock this editor if he/she promises to stop accusing others of colluding, harassing and other improper behavior - none of which is happening here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome your response as a gesture of good will. Before we go any further, please allow me to ask you why was the WP:ANI case closed so hurriedly, like I said before, without consensus, as no fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached? You did not allow other impartial editors to voice their opinion. I don’t think this is consensus, but again, I might be wrong once more. Every time I ask for help and dialog, what I get are false accusations, insults and “scolding”. Why is it so difficult to have a rational, cordial and intelligent discussion? I don’t think that I pose a nuisance or threat to anyone here. All I have asked for is respect, consideration, decorum, open dialog and fair play. If these conditions and rules of engagement will be adhere to by interacting parties, then I guess we can find a compromise. And I say compromise because I realize that both sides of the ally honestly believe to be right. Thus, how can we reach an agreement and understanding? I think I have demonstrated to be tolerant, respectful and open to civilized discussion. What are your thoughts? --Grancafé (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I honestly believe that the questions, reasoning and analysis posted today by Largo Plazo, herein above, should have been the correct approach and appropriate response to begin with. If you want answers, you must ask questions first; and this is the basis of dialog and discussion. It is called civilized interaction and reasoning. It is the proper way to build a positive consensus and avoid insults and offenses. I think we could all learn a lesson in tolerance and correct understanding. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have proposed to lift he block if I promise to stop accusing others of colluding, harassing and other improper behavior. I can promise to do so, under the understanding that I am not admitting to any wrongdoing here. I honestly believe what I have expressed, that I feel that I have been harassed and that the handling of my complaints have been inadequate; and, as far as improper behavior, I ask you to please explain, what exactly you are talking about? Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I've unblocked you per your promise. Please don't make me regret it.

As far as closing the discussion on ANI, you really need to present a solid case when presenting accusations like yours on ANI. After I requested more, specific information and took a brief look into the situation, I could find no wrongdoing on the part of the folks you were accusing of "Impropriety and harassment". When you failed to present any concrete evidence other than pointing to a long discussion and then you attacked EdJohnston, it seemed like there was nothing to discuss and I as an uninvolved adiministrator, did what I am supposed to do and dealt with the situation - in this case closed it as unfounded and frankly a vindictive accusation for folks disagreeing with you. I chose to put it more mildly and call it forum shopping.

Regarding consensus: you had two uninvolved administrators, both me and EdJohston tell you there was nothing to discuss. To paraphrase, the consensus is that there was nothing to discuss.

As for the rest of the your comment/questions, a great example of what I'm talking about is in this edit, you accused from what I can tell a completely uninvolved and impartial administrator, EdJohnston of

“smoke screening” and diversion tactics of misinformation, in an effort to misguide this discussion.

You have no basis to assume that this completely impartial and uninvolved administrator is trying to spread misinformation, divert the conversation or putting up a smoke screen. I believe that such a comment is both flat-out wrong and disruptive. It's like saying because you don't agree with what I said, you must be an evil person. One of our fundamental tenets of behavior here on wikipedia is when there is any reasonable doubt, assume good faith on the part of other editors - especially those you disagree with.

I'm really not sure what to tell you beyond that except please live up to your promise. Toddst1 (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t wish to extend this exchange for very long. Could you please tell me what do you understand by “Stop making COI edits now” and “you don’t get to work both ways; you’re either a novice or you’re not. Choose.” I find these very offensive, rude and provoking. Perhaps I am hypersensitive. But rather than closing the case without inquiring or examining the circumstances of my claim, you should have investigated the facts and nature of the same, allowing for others to interact. I think you acted hurriedly and with little consideration to my point of view. Please respond. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my claim on WP:ANI at 16:05. At 16:23 you asked for WP:Diffs, and before I could even respond, by 16:50 I was already being accused of forum shopping. And without further question, without allowing anybody else to comment, the case was closed by 17:17. Don’t you agree this was kind of hurried and suspicious? To me it is. But again, perhaps I am just too hypersensitive. I am completely unfamiliar as to how fast these actions are handled and closed.--Grancafé (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, to explain why I considered the comments of EdJohnston to be “smoke screening” and diversion tactics of misinformation, in an effort to misguide this discussion, is simply because my main concern and complaint was about “impropriety” and “harassment”; it had nothing to do with WP:COI. Throwing in this issue of COI I find it to be distracting and diverting from the central issue. When the inquiry takes that direction, it is completely off the main point. To my believe and understanding, the issues of “impropriety” and “harassment” were never addressed. With this said, I don’t wish to continue this endless posting that has solved nothing. Let’s leave this behind and move on. I will seal the WP:DRR for now. I apologize for all the misunderstandings from all sides and for any discomfort this action might have caused. --Grancafé (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still blocked. Why is this? --Grancafé (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. Your block log says:
01:23, 23 February 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Grancafé (talk | contribs)"
and you don't appear to be autoblocked. The autoblock detector agrees with me. Are you sure you're still blocked? Toddst1 (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Request

Grancafé vs. Toddst1, et al

Summarizing the issues to be resolved:

1. The block to this editor was improper, unfounded and vindictive.

2. The cases at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and WP:ANI were handled unfairly, hurriedly and improperly, as there was no consensus, no examination and no discussion.

3. The demeanor of Flowanda and Largo Plazo towards Grancafé has been harassing, hostile and inadequate, in violation Wiki etiquette.

  • There is NO claim regarding WP:COI on this request.

--Grancafé (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I can’t, I am blocked!

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I first tried reasoning with the editors, and it didn’t work. Then I posted an advice request on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests page, and that didn’t work either. Then, yesterday I posted a help request on WP:ANI, which went no were. And this morning I got blocked for seeking advice on the advisability, validity and judiciousness of proceeding with a “dispute resolution request”.

Statement by Toddst1

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing: continued canvasssing/forum shopping after discussion on ANI, continued unfounded allegations against other editors and not heeding WP:Consensus.

Statement by Grancafé

I think I was blocked because I was seeking advice on proceeding with a dispute resolution process to resolve my unresolved help request posted on WP:ANI. I find it unfair, unfounded and vindictive. My complaint was hurriedly closed without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. There was no consensus, just a one side hammering. Many other editors, such as Doc Quintana, Jeremy and Okip, have reviewed my work and they approve and support it. My understanding of consensus is when BOTH parties have reached an understanding and agreement. Not just the agreement of one side or party. There was NO consensus, as no fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached. Why not give other editors a fair chance to express their opinion. There is NO forum shopping in my complaint. I was simply and clearly referring to the harassment and impropriety of Flowanda. The discussion was side tracked and derailed, under the misrepresentation of “forum shopping” and “conflict of interest” editing. The issue of harassment was never addressed, discussed or resolved! Please review my original complaint, my editing history and the merits of this request.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Citations and References

Hi, i'm not sure if there is a difference to be honest. Is someone giving you a problem with them? Doc Quintana (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc, It is always good to hear from you. Without your help I would feel like a lost orphan. To answer your question, NO, no one is giving me a problem. As you know, I have been working on rehabilitating, restoring and referencing articles of Colombian interest, mainly Presidents and institutions. Mijotoba has been helping me with some editing and reference questions that I’ve had. I am a quite confused regarding the use of citations and references and how to key them in, but I think I might have understood the matter. The question arose from a dialog that I have been having with (User talk:Mijotoba) which I copy here under for your ready reference:

Template:Citation (make sure you are citing in the correct format template to adequately attribute the sourced content and make it a habit of using this template and its derivatives to source in the future)

I don't understand the meaning of Template:Citation. I think I have been using a {reference} template to reference the articles. What is the difference between a citation and a reference? I have worked on at least 30 or 40 articles by now, trying to rehabilitate, restore and reference. I have used at least 10 to 15 references per article. That is a total of about 600 entries. It would be a terrible thing if all this work is not correctly done. Are they all wrong? Am I doing the referencing wrong? I really need your advice here, before I go any further. I honestly believed I was referencing every article correctly. I am doing exactly what my mentors taught me to do. Please clarify this matter at your earliest convenience. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes and no. The reference template that you refer to is only to add the annotations at the bottom of the page in the "Reference" section; the annotation in it of themselves have to be in a citation template for what you like to call "aesthetics" and to keep with proper citation guidelines. If you ever took an College English class you might be familiar with different style guides like MLA, APA, Chicago or Turabian, Wikipedia's citation templates allows you to properly cite sources accordingly, so for example if you are citing a book you should include the Template:Cite book and use as many of the parameters as possible, or if you cite a newspaper you should use Template:Cite journal, or a vide Template:Cite video and so on. So for example if I were to cite the Ospina Coffee website I would use the following template:

Colombia has 1,048 municipalities[1]. I of course just made up your name and the date it was published since I have no idea when it was published, but for example you used a citation in the Ospina Coffee Company "Gobernantes Colombianos, Interprint, Ignacio Arismendi Posada, Page 176, Bogotá, Colombia, 1983" sure it has the information, is just presented the wrong way, it should be[2] that is of course using only the information that you put up there, but the ISBN or the OCLC numbers are very useful, as well as things like chapter, links, or translations of sections etc. This makes references easier to read and more accessible for readers as well as uniform. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information.

Thank you for the information. It does not look easy. It is going to take some time to digest. --Grancafé (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I got the first part, which is to use [3]. What do I do if I need to use this same reference several times in the same article, like I have had to do so many times? Thanks,--Grancafé (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

References 1. ^ Ospina, Bobby (2012-09-17). "Coffee Facts" (in English). The Process. Charlotte, NC: Ospina Coffee Company. http://www.ospinacoffee.com/coffee_facts.html. Retrieved 2010-02-25. 2. ^ Arismendi Posada, Ignacio (1983). Gobernantes Colombianos [Colombian Rulers]. Bogotá: Interprint. p. 176. 3. ^ Arismendi Posada, Ignacio (1983). Gobernantes Colombianos [Colombian Rulers]. Bogotá: Interprint. p. 176.

Reference name (naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once)

I THINK THI IS DIRECTLY FROM WIKIPEDIA or from Okip. Not sure.

To give a footnote a unique identifier, use <ref name="name"> ... </ref>. You can then refer to the same footnote again by using a ref tag with the same name like <ref name="name" />. The name cannot be a number, or the extension will return an error. The ref name need not be placed within quotes unless it contains a space, certain punctuation marks, or non-ASCII characters[1] (the wiki parser converts single word quoteless attribute values into validly quoted XHTML). Note that any quotation marks placed around the ref name must be straight quotes (") rather than curly quotes (“ or ”).

Named references are used when there are several cases of repetition of exactly the same reference, including the page number for books; they should not be used to cite different pages in the same book. Named references in wikitext serve a purpose similar to loc. cit. or ibid. in printed media. See also cautions in Style below.

Only the first occurrence of text in a named ref will be used, although that occurrence may be located anywhere in the article. You can either copy the whole footnote, or you can use a terminated empty ref tag that looks like this: <ref name="name" />. Such forward-slash-terminated named tags may precede the definition of the named reference.[2] When using named references, the use of <ref name="name" /> for the later instances of the named footnote is encouraged, rather than copying the whole footnote again. Whole footnotes tend to reduce the readability of the article's text in edit mode, which makes finding specific parts of the text when editing tedious.

This, like the use of named footnotes in the first place, is a matter for editorial judgment; some editors do repeat the entire footnote, in case rearrangement of the text removes the first note, or places it after a blank note (previously, the note had to be defined prior to use, although that is no longer the case). If so, all instances of the footnote must be updated together, which can be more trouble than it saves.

In the following example, the same source is cited three times.

This is an example of multiple references to the same footnote.<ref name="multiple" /> Such references are particularly useful when citing sources where different statements come from the same source.<ref name="multiple">Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.</ref> A concise way to make multiple references is to use empty ref tags, which have a slash at the end.<ref name="multiple">This text is superfluous, and won't show up anywhere. We may as well just use an empty tag.</ref>

== Notes ==
<references />

The edit text above gives the following result in the article:

This is an example of multiple references to the same footnote.[1] Such references are particularly useful when citing sources where different statements come from the same source.[1] A concise way to make multiple references is to use empty ref tags, which have a slash at the end.[1]

Notes

  1. ^ a b c Author, A. (2007). "How to cite references", New York: McGraw-Hill.

One should be particularly careful when deleting a named reference with text content, because the footnote text will be deleted unless it is copied to another ref tag with the same name.

The National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia

Hi mentor editors, I just noticed that the article on the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia was arbitrary modified on February 20, 2010, at 16:00 by an editor VickyMa, deleting all my contributions with total disregard and without any comment, justification or reason; in my opinion, with total contempt. What should I do here to have my contributions inserted back into the article? I don’t want to do so just on my own initiative in order to avoid any argument or confrontation. Should I ask for comment RFC? Or what do you suggest I do? Please advice. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much, VickyMa seems to be cruising for a bruising at this rate, Flowanda reverted her edits a few times on that page. I'd just say try to talk it out with them and if they don't want to talk and are avoiding consensus editing, revert any POV/non-sourced/non-notable edits they make and watch out for WP:3RR. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc. You are always there, on time and on point! As you very well noticed, VickyMa mutilated the well referenced article and did not care to ad a single citation or reference. As you wisely suggest, I should avoid WP:3RR. This is why I said I did not want to revert anything by myself. I have asked three other editors, Coffee, Jeremy and Okip, to look into this matter. I have no intentions of discussing this matter with VickyMay, as she seems to be very rude, aggressive and a trouble maker. Please further advice on a more positive and constructive path. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting once or constructive edit wars (partially reverting with partial accomodation in order to find a common ground) is perfectly ok in just about anybody's book on Wikipedia from what i've seen. But good idea on trying to stay away from VickyMa in this case, usually troublemakers give themselves enough rope to hang themselves, just keep on doing what you're doing and you'll be ok. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VickyMa

This editor appears to be what is known as a single purpose account (SPA), in this case the editor is placing copy and pasted copyrighted text taken from the Colombian Coffee Growers Association (I know the name is not quite right) web site into articles. The person has been reverted on several occasions by other editors, myself included. Let us take care of this editor and you stay out of the issue to avoid any issues that could get you in trouble. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, thank you so very much for your prompt, insightful and encouraging response. Shall do. Mil gracias, --Grancafé (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is always a pleasure to deal with a “Caballero”. You are a gentleman and a scholar. --Grancafé (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Grancafé. You have new messages at Jujutacular's talk page.
Message added 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Jujutacular T · C 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was rereading over our conversation and I noticed you had said you wanted bold and italic font. If you would still like to do this, it can be done by using five apostrophes. Example: Bold and italic using the code: '''''Bold and italic'''''. Further information about formatting can be found at WP:CHEAT. Jujutacular T · C 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup

Thank you for this, what a sweet gesture! But I am friendly by nature, I was only being myself. I'm pleased that you appreciate it, :) Maedin\talk 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages

Hello, Grancafé. You have new messages at Maedin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Presidential order

I'm working on the list of Presidents of Colombia and in efforts to represent the different presidential ordering methods I am including the historical inclusive method that says that Bolívar was our first President (as opposed to the fact that he was the President of Gran Colombia, not present day Colombia). I have found a list online, but I have found a discrepancy in it, for some reason it lists both Rafael Núñez and Francisco Javier Zaldua as the 22nd president, and then goes to Miguel Antonio Caro the 26th and suddenly skips the 27th president and goes to Manuel Antonio Sanclemente the 28th. I'm not quite sure if they got mistake and did 22nd twice and then corrected it with Sanclemente or if indeed both Núñez and Zaldua are considered the 22nd and for whatever magical reason the 27th does not count.

Anyways, I noticed that you changed the Presidential order of Mariano Ospina Perez from the one used in the infoboxes which counted from José María Campo Serrano as being the 1st President of present day Colombia, to the historically encompassing one that makes Ospina the 43rd President of Colombia in general, and I was wondering if you got this from that book you keep referencing the Gobernantes Colombianos by Arismendi and if so could you see who is the 27th President and the correct 22nd President, or if you got this order from somewhere else could you find out there, and if online send me a link to cite it. Thanks mijotoba (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to hear this. I think it is a fabulous idea to have the presidential order starting with Simón Bolívar as the first President. That is what we were thought in school! I find your effort to be most commendable and highly appreciated. The book that I am using to edit the Presidents of Colombia, as you know, is Arismendi Posada, Ignacio; Gobernantes Colombianos; trans. Colombian Presidents; Interprint Editors Ltd.; Italgraf; Segunda Edición; Bogotá, Colombia; 1983. He lists Francisco Javier Zaldúa as no. 22 and José Eusebio Otálora as no. 23. (By the way, could you fix Otálora’s last name to have the accent on the á on the main page, caption title?) Arismendi has Miguel Antonio Caro as no. 27 and Manuel Antonio Sanclemente as no. 28. Eliseo Payán is no. 25, Carlos Holguín Mallarino as no. 26 and Mariano Ospina Pérez as no. 43.
Truly, I don’t know how accurate Arismendi is. For example, Arismendi does not list Clímaco Calderón or José María Rojas Garrido. But he is the best that I have. If it would be helpful for your effort, I would be more than happy to transcribe the whole list of Presidents of Colombia as presented by Arismendi. Please let me know if this would help and if you are interested. --Grancafé *parley 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Arismendi only counts the “Presidente Titular” in his list of presidents. He does not count the interim, designates and vice-presidents acting as president. Nevertheless, he does mention all the interim and acting presidents. If you are interested in this whole list, I could also transcribe this complete list, with dates of the Titular and interims in office. It will be my pleasure, --Grancafé *parley 18:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I'm still having a problem, could you let me know who were the 20 through 30 presidents?
I am trying to make List of Presidents of Colombia into a Featured List, because I think once we standardize that page, we can then use it as a template to fix and standardize all the related articles like the article of President of Colombia, all the individual Presidents of Colombia, the article Vice President of Colombia, the List of Vice Presidents of Colombia, all the individual articles on the Vice Presidents of Colombia, and also use the system to do the same in the Spanish and French Wikipedias (and the other languages as well but these are the only two that I could actually contribute to), not to mention the category pages where they fall, so we are looking to fix about 150 possible articles in the English Wikipedia alone.
If we use the list that Arismendi uses, the problem is that it leaves chunks of time where there is no President, so we cannot call it a "Chronological list" which is what it should be, it also counts only the people but not each individual presidency, so it is a tough one to understand, but I am doing something similar to what the very good and featured list List of Presidents of Venezuela did, they used 3 different forms of ordering to solve that problem. I will be creating a collaboration page to get Colombian Wikipedians to vote and comment on how to fix and present the information as a form of consensus, I will send you an invite once I have done that. mijotoba (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of Presidents 1-53 according to Arismendi.

1. Simón Bolívar

2. Francisco de Paula Santander

3. Domingo Caycedo

4. Rafael Urdaneta

5. José Ignacio de Márquez

6. Pedro Alcántara Herrán

7. Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera

8. José Hilario López

9. José María Obando

10. José María Melo

11. José de Obaldía

12. Manuel María Mallarino

13. Mariano Ospina Rodríguez

14. Manuel Murillo Toro

15. Santos Acosta

16. Santos Gutiérrez

17. Eustorgio Segar

18. Santiago Pérez

19. Aquileo Parra

20. Julián Trujillo

21. Rafael Núñez

22. Francisco Javier Martínez de Zaldúa y Racines

23. José Eusebio Otálora

24. José María Campo Serrano

25. Eliseo Payán

26. Carlos Holguín Mallarino

27. Miguel Antonio Caro

28. Manuel Antonio Sanclemente

29. José Manuel Marroquín

30. Rafael Reyes

31. Jorge Holguín

32. Ramón González Valencia

33. Carlos E. Restrepo

34. José Vicente Concha

35. Marco Fidel Suárez

36. Pedro Nel Ospina

37. Miguel Abadía Méndez

38. Enrique Olaya Herrera

39. Alfonso López Pumarejo

40. Eduardo Santos

41. Darío Echandía

42. Alberto Lleras Camargo

43. Mariano Ospina Pérez

44. Laureano Gómez

45. Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez

46. Gustavo Rojas Pinilla

47. Gabriel París

48. Guillermo León Valencia

49. Carlos Lleras Restrepo

50, Misael Pastrana Borrero

51. Alfonso López Michelsen

52. Julio César Turbay Ayala

53. Belisario Betancur Cuartas


If you would like the entire list, just let me know.--Grancafé *parley 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you could I would need the list up to the 20th cause I got the list from http://www.lablaa.org/blaavirtual/ayudadetareas/poli/poli73.htm but there is a discrepancy. mijotoba (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest! that would be great! mijotoba (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it, from Simón Bolívar to Belisario Betancur Cuartas. I will try to contact the Academia de Historia de Colombia and try to obtain their official list. --Grancafé *parley 23:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia Collaboration Invitation

WikiProject Colombia
You have been invited to participate in Collaboration of the Month to improve and standardize the List of Presidents of Colombia in hopes of raising it to featured list status.

mijotoba (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind invitation. It will be my pleasure to contribute and help. If there is anything in particular that you would like me to do, please let me know. I am already in the process of obtaining the official list of Presidents from the "Academia Colombiana de Historia". --Grancafé *parley 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In re: your message

Hello,

Last month you posted on my talk page. I didn't respond at the time, but I did read the message and very much appreciated what you had to say. I didn't respond at the time, because I wanted to respond properly and that simply was not possible given my time constraints at the time.

First, I have corrected the typo. Thanks for pointing it out.

Now, for the important stuff. :) I'd love to talk religion with you any time - on or off wiki. I am a bit confused by your message, though. You used the term agnostic but then described yourself it terms that don't sound very agnostic to me. This probably has something to do with being a native Spanish speaker (although your English does seem very good to me). In English, the term is normally used to describe someone who has no strong religious beliefs of any kind. They may or may not be looking for answers, but they definitely haven't found any. In contrast, an Atheist would be someone who strongly believes there is no god. Based on your self description, you seem to have some answers, but are unsure of the details. I would call that more like being a skeptical Christian than being agnostic.

You also used the term "fundamentalist Christian." This term has a lot of different meanings to different people. To me, a fundamentalist Christian is someone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. That is, that the Bible is free of errors of any type. That would contrast with a "liberal Christian" who might say the Bible has good ideas and good moral stories, but is not necessarily accurate. Most people, naturally, will fall somewhere it between. Personally, I am much closer to the fundamentalist side of things.

Apologetics, basically, means making logical arguments about religious matters. Now, very few people come to Christ because of logical arguments. However, it can be a useful tool to remove stumbling blocks, that once removed allow a person to see the Truth. Furthermore, it is a tool to strengthen one's own faith. That is to, as Jesus put it, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind." (Luke 10:27) Apologetics is the mind part of the equation. Or as Peter put it, we must be "ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15)

Apologetics is a very broad field, covering everything from arguments for the existence of God to explanations of apparent contradictions within the Bible (either with itself or with the observable world). From your brief message, I gather you, at minimum, have an interest in historical proofs for Jesus' existence. If that is the case, we can start there. The historical argument is actually one of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christian doctrine. Or we can start where ever you'd like. I will be happy to share whatever information (personal, Apologetic, or otherwise) that you might be interested in.

Let me know how you want to conduct further discussions (on here? via email? some other method?) and what you want to talk about. I love forward to hearing from you. Yours in Christ, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Specifically, quotes are not necessary if the name contains only printable ASCII characters excluding space, straight double quote ("), dollar sign ($), percent sign (%), straight single quote ('), plus sign (+), equals sign (=), backslash (\), and the greater-than sign (>). With quotes, the only restriction is that the name may not contain the less-than sign (<) or the quote character.
  2. ^ Wikipedia Signpost. November 13, 2006.