Voui

Welcome!

Hello, Voui, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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! JRSP (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message. Actually I am not new to Wikipedia. Merry christmas. Voui (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm wondering if you can lend a hand with a spot of (French to English) translation? I'd like someone to go through the final paragraph of the Under French control section of the Château-Gaillard article to make sure I've understood the source. I was working from this, and think I've covered the main points but can't be sure as my French is not great. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nev, your question is alas more than a question of language. In order to answer I would have to understand what all this is about and to enter completely into these archeology questions. It would take me a lot of time and archeology is not very much my cup of tea. If you have a more precise question I will be happy to answer, but in these general terms, I am afraid I am not the right person. Best Regards Voui (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah well it might be quite involved so never mind. I've asked several people, so need need to put yourself out. Thanks anyway. Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Noticed your attempt to place some true material in an article on Venezuela. As you have discovered all Venezuela articles are heavily censored by several thugs who watch all articles (including our pages, alas). While WP:CENSORship is supposedly illegal, it still prevails with enough determined editors. We will eventually triumph against the censors, but it will take awhile. And they have other thugs waiting in the wings to take over. Not an easy job. And they are better organized. It would be helpful, though not essential, for reasons that they watch this page (and mine) to supply an email. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added an email to my preferences, so it should work now. Thanks Voui (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid I will not be able to edit very much about human rights in Venezuela. There would be plenty of things to say, but the sources are mostly in Spanish and I don't speak Spanish. Voui (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You MUST read WP:COPYPASTE and the policies it links to. This is basic. It would also be helpful if you engaged in less editing and more discussion. Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The most important articles have been translated (or originated) in English. Would be interested in your opinion on the topic Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Relation_with_Carlos_the_Jackal. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Check your email. Student7 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have been consistently violating copyright by copypasting text from external sources and from other Wikipedia articles, without proper attribution. Please confirm that you understand that this is not permissible. See WP:COPYPASTE for details. Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you give me the precise content which does not comply?Voui (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've always made this clear in my edit summaries, which you can see under the History tab of the article when I've made changes. Here is an example (with the URL in the edit summary because you didn't include the source in the article) [1] Rd232 ^talk 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just to remind you of the WP:3RR rule. Check the article history before reverting. Better yet, engage in some discussion. There is no deadline, and somebody needs to go and research the bigger picture. The energy you spend trying to promote your text would be far better spent looking into that. Once a bigger picture is established, your text will either be unnecessary or fit into that picture somewhere, in an appropriate context. Once again: it's an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper. big picture. secondary sources. OK? Rd232 ^talk 12:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain to me where are the 4 reverts in 24 hours. Because really i don't see them.Voui (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

There, weren't, at the point you asked (it was a friendly reminder of the rule) - but there are now. That you did so despite the reminder and, apparently, checking, amazes me. Rd232 ^talk 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seem to be right. By half an hour! Sorry. it will never happen again I will check. Voui (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fine, but I'm rather disappointed that you seem determined to continue reverting, rather than take on board the many criticisms of your text, and proceed as I repeatedly suggested, to find better sources which address the big picture. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have taken them very much into account, I think, and I will continue. Maybe sometimes you could also take my view into account?Voui (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your recent reverts take some arguments into account in a minor way. "My view" / "your view" is irrelevant - address the arguments on the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I should also point out that 3RR is merely an indicator of edit warring; you can be blocked for edit warring despite not breaching the rule. Repeatedly reverting to your own version against consensus and with minimal engagement with talk page discussion is often considered edit warring. Rd232 ^talk 21:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This I know but believe me, it seems to me that this is very much what you are doing. You have also taken on your own hands to go out of an RFC that might have helped, and again this is against the rules. Anyway I think the pages I have edited today go very much in your direction. Hope you will appreciate that.Voui (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I already replied to this, it seems to have been lost :(. Anyway, I already explained on the article talk page about the RFC; and other dispute resolution, through noticeboards like WP:NPOVN, would be better first. If/when an RFC is necessary, its scope and phrasing are better agreed in advance, at a point when the issues are reasonably clear. Rd232 ^talk 21:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I grow a bit weary of your accusations of bad faith. If you're going to continue to take this comment to you as the guiding light on your attitude towards those who disagree with you, we're not going to get anywhere. You might as well pursue some dispute resolution on my behaviour and have done with it. WP:Helpdesk on that if you're not sure what to do. Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please stop using my talk page for this. Use rather the talk page of the appropriate page. Thx.Voui (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

User talk page is the appropriate thing, to avoid distracting, at the article talk page, from the content issues. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

PS I meant to point out (on the page protection issue) WP:WRONGVERSION. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is very cynical to say that, from somebody who has promoted its own page and then have it blocked as is.Voui (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sigh; no, it isn't. Of course I'm going to revert your re-addition, for the n-th time, of the disputed text you hadn't really engaged in discussion about. And in view of your demonstrated willingness to edit war without sufficient engagement, page protection was clearly necessary. Rd232 ^talk 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Incredible! You have not demonstrated any will to engage.Voui (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've criticised (and so have others) the text you keep trying to add; criticisms you've not substantively responded to. I've suggested other ways to move forward and improve the article; suggestions you seem to have zero interest in engaging with. Rd232 ^talk 14:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

By the way, here you identify an editor by name in an edit summary. This is generally discouraged, because the explanation/description should be about the edit, not the editors. Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

ok point taken. Voui (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this could serve as an example of the sort of issues I'm talking about:

• your edit placed unsourced text somewhere it didn't really belong ("Publication") and without the relevant context.
• my fix provides a source, and links to the relevant context (the collection drive, which I was able to link to in another article).

See the difference? PS make sure when you add sources to include the date and the publisher as well. Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this was fine.Voui (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

But do you see what the problems were with your edit? Because they afflict many of your edits, and in most cases it would take vastly more work to fix those issues. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In view of your latest response at Talk:Venezuela, I must repeat here the request I made at Talk:Human rights in Venezuela:

I must ask you once and for all to either drop your constant accusations of bad faith, exemplified by your latest comment just above, or to pursue some dispute resolution such as WP:WQA or whatever you think best (advice at WP:HELPDESK if necessary). One or the other, please.[2]

Please let me know which of these two courses of action you wish to pursue. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 10:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have no time for all this wikilawyering.Voui (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Political prisoners in Venezuela, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political prisoners in Venezuela. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rd232 ^talk 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you're losing track of your userspace drafts (you are creating a few with a lot of overlap...), you can find them all here: [3]. Also, userspace drafts should have {{userspace draft}} at the top. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

thanks for your help.Voui (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Accessibility_of_source on the issue of access to the WSJ article. Unfortunately I only very recently became aware of WebCite - I would have tried to use that (not quite sure if it's compatible, since websites can choose to disallow WebCite access). Rd232 ^talk 11:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

on Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Both of you. There is a talk page, explain and discuss there instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Political repression in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rd232 ^talk 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:CANVAS (most relevant section: Votestacking), and confirm that you understand why you're not supposed to do that sort of thing. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• From what I read, what I did was perfectly ok: limited posting, neutral message, non partisan audience, and open. Voui (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The idea of the RfC is to try and get some outside opinions, but not to edit the intro at present. At present its largely deadlocked between two camps, those who would like to think of Gibraltar a British colony run by westminister and those who think its self-governing.

However, since the 2006 constitution, everything apart from defence and foreign relations is done by the elected Government. I see that in Liechtenstein, has no military forces (prohibited) and yet they are described as self-governing.

Please do not be discouraged from looking for references and joining the discussion. --Gibnews (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well no problem and thank you for your message. I must say that this conflict is very surprising. Everybody agrees on the facts, everybody also recognizes that being self-governed or not is not a matter of facts but a matter of international law and politics. So why is it important to mention it is self-governed or not? Voui (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have been reading the extraordinary battle you have been fighting to include human rights material about what is occurring in Venezuela. Your personal experience with two of the editors: JRSP and Rd232 on the discussion pages of several articles is very enlightening. Especially that you are able to summarize how they work as a team to manipulate the entries they wish to scrub clean of information that reflects badly on the government of that country. I am new here, too, and am somewhat inexperienced but I am getting better every day and I am beginning to suspect that their editing is not innocent or good-faith but that something else is going on. I have looked at the editing history of one of these editors and it looks like a piece by piece creation of a new reality to portray something very different than the nasty truth. Thank you and please know that if I could add some star award for you I would add it on here now--I will learn that next. MerciMarturetCR (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you Voui (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  User:Voui/Human rights in Venezuela, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Voui/Human rights in Venezuela and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Voui/Human rights in Venezuela during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply