User talk:LoosingIt

Welcome!

Hello, LoosingIt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LoosingIt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm Crystallizedcarbon. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Dastaan (TV series)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Amelia Guzmán

Hey, I saw that you blanked the page for Rosa Amelia Guzmán. While we do have a policy that says Ignore All Rules, that is usually not applied to article content in this way. There are policies which require consensus for merging text or deletions, which if you do not follow tend to be seen as disruptive. If we knew more about you, like you speak Spanish; you are an expert on Salvadoran sourcing; you have verified with all the major archive, library and university repositories that there are no other sources (since digitization in Central America is rare); or that you have authoritative knowledge in the women's rights movements of Latin America, specifically in El Salvador, your decision to blank the page without discussion might not be viewed as disruptive.

But, since we don't know that, sticking to policy and gaining consensus is the way to go. At the very least, posting on the talk page to start discussion is required. I've asked a couple of admins to review your action to verify that they concur that the blanking of the page and failure to properly merge the information into the file you redirected it to is problematic. Typically women who fought for voting rights and then were elected to national office are considered notable in their own right and not dependent on someone else's notability to have an article in the encyclopedia. If you need help in evaluating women's articles, please join us on the talk page at Women in Red. We're a group of men and women working to improve the content about notable women in the encyclopedic record. It's a very helpful group and you will usually get a faster response posting there than posting on the talk page of a single article. You can also ask the other projects listed on the article talk page for their input. SusunW (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW It's normally a requirement that independent sources provide substantial information on any person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article. Just short mentions within a few different books do not establish notability. I've seen many cases of articles deleted, not just redirected, on this exact ground. Keep in mind that this is a person of modern times who no one even bothered to record the birth or death of. Even non-notable figures of modern times at least have a birth or death date. Also worth nothing that the article, as it currently stands, falsely implies that a scholarly article has been written on this person. The title of Claudia Elizabeth Iraheta's article isn't "Rosa Amelia Guzman", that's just a small subheading within an article of a different title. Anyway, if someone actually took the time to record this person's birth or death dates, that would be the first basic step towards proving her notability. Do you know her date of birth and/or death?LoosingIt (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoosingIt I'm well aware of the notability requirements, as well as how to weigh evidence. Length is not nearly as important a measure as is the actual content contained in the document. Even Márquez Espinosa et al. which devotes 3 pages to her contains incomplete information. It may be that you are applying standards to Central America that aren't really reflective of local custom. A lot of notable people from the region do not have birth and death information widely available and certainly not on the web. I've been working on it off and on all day. I believe from my research that she was born in 1900, but need clarification and have reached out to La Prensa Gráfica, as Márquez Espinosa et al. indicates she was regularly featured in their pages. Haven't even been able to pinpoint where her husband, a former president is buried (or his actual birth date), nor when their son was born, which confirms that the information you want is atypical. Can you imagine not knowing the birth date of a U. S. President? SusunW (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoosingIt I agree with what SusunW says above. And I'll add that as a person who was 1 of 3 of the first female legislators in her country, that's a big deal and tells you she's not just a nobody. That fact was cited in the article, as well. Wikipedia has notability standards for politicians and that alone would make her article notable (see WP:POLITICIAN) since she served national office. Not knowing when she was born or died (especially in a foreign country where these things are handled differently) is of limited significance. It certainly doesn't show notability or lack of it at all. I hope that in the future that you will not use this as a yardstick for measuring notability since it's not a universal standard by any means. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with and support above comments by @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoosingIt it may help bring clarity if you consider that El Salvador was under dictatorship from the early 1930s to the early 1990s. Sharing information was not necessarily a good thing and could get you exiled, or worse. In fact, the woman who is one of the most noted scholars on women in El Salvador was exiled to Mexico and Costa Rica for a lengthy period of time during those decades. I have also reached out to her to see if she can provide any additional leads on sourcing, but as Megalibrarygirl points out, Guzmán clearly meets our politician requirements. SusunW (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW Describing an individual's birth and death dates as being "atypical" seems quite bizarre to me. This is essential biographical information, and I'm not aware of any notable Salvadoran for whom this data is not recorded in publicly available sources. Plenty of historical dictionaries on Salvadoran history have been published, and they include at very least the birth and death dates of ALL the figures described therein. Arturo Araujo was born on March 6 1877 (see, for example, Semblanzas De Salvadorenos Destacados, p.21). It's bold of Wikipedia to include an article on a figure like Rosa Amelia Guzman who is unmentioned in even the most detailed dictionaries of Salvadoran history (except to briefly note her status as Arturo Araujo's second wife). I also find it quite unpersuasive that she spent her whole life hidden from the military dictatorship. When Arturo Araujo married Rosa Amelia Guzman in San Salvador in 1952, one of the witnesses at their wedding was President Oscar Osorio, who came to power in a coup in 1948, plus Interior Minister Jose Maria Lemus.(see Memorias De Un Ciudadano p.103) If she was hiding from the dictators, why did she expressly invite the dictators to her wedding? At the wedding, she described coup mastermind Lemus as a "heartthrob" (galan).

I personally favor a redirect, so that the tidbits of information currently in the article can still be viewed in case someone can actually find substantive information on this person at a later date. If the article were to be nominated for deletion now, it would have virtually no chance of being kept, and then what little information is available here would be completely inaccessible. I only own about 700 books on Salvadoran history, so I'm not saying that I have all the data available to me, but none of these books gives substantial coverage to Rosa Amelia Guzman, or mentions her birth or death dates. We haven't yet taken the first steps towards proving her notability. If someone can find her birth and death dates, information which is widely and easily available for all other notable Salvadorans, that would a great first step.LoosingIt (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, concerning your interest in where Arturo Araujo is buried. He is buried in Santa Tecla Cemetery. He came from a wealthy family who have a big mausoleum to themselves. I've been there myself, but for a citation, see Memorias De Un Ciudadano p.107.LoosingIt (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tidbits of information on Guzmán. That is helpful and yes, typical for women's history, that women are often listed as spouse of, daughter of, sister of and their own biographical information is sketchy. Márquez Espinosa et al. acknowledges that most published material shows her only as the wife of Araujo or mother of Armando. As I said, I believe that she was born in 1900. Anecdotal evidence I have found shows she was from San Miguel, and this (last one on the right hand page) may be her, though I need confirmation of that. I am hoping Dr. Navas responds. We shall see. SusunW (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I really was serious about asking you to join Women in Red. There are so many red links on Salvadoran women that we could use help with. As you can see from just this discussion on one woman, women throughout history were not covered in textbooks or scholarly articles. Even someone who convinced the legislature to give women full citizenship is omitted from stuff kids learn in school, in favor of war, nationalism, etc. The two best sources since the advent of women's studies are typically those departments at universities and newspapers. Do you know if there is a repository which houses newspaper archives there or is it required that one contact the publisher? Here in Mexico there is a repository, but it is in DF and not available on line. (Not very convenient). SusunW (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW Yes, but there is a genuine concern about Wikipedia creating articles on people for whom so few reliable, independent sources exist. The only even remotely substantive source of information on Rosa Amelia Guzman explicitly says that she is only noted in the scholarly literature as being the wife of Arturo Araujo. If we have a source that expressly says she is primarily notable for being the wife of Arturo Araujo, my view is that we should simply wait until historians write more substantively about her, rather than pre-emptively adding the Wikipedia article before historians have gotten around to actually completing her biography. As I mentioned before, a lot of really good and comprehensive dictionaries of Salvadoran history have been published, which include tens of thousands of biographies, and my personal view is that Wikipedia should limit itself to these historical figures, i.e. the biographies that have already been written by historians. I'm sure that Women in Red does good work in general, but I still maintain that it goes too far to pre-empt the historians. Newspapers are unfortunately a weak link when it comes to digitization of sources in Central America. You mentioned earlier that there isn't much digitization, but when it comes to El Salvador, there's actually quite a lot when it comes to books, theses, and academic journals. The large majority of those three types of sources are available online(see, to cite just a few, www.cialc.unam.mx, https://lamjol.info, http://www.redicces.org.sv, https://dialnet.unirioja.es, https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr, rd.udb.edu.sv, ri.ues.edu.sv, revistas.ues.edu.sv, and of course Library Genesis), but unfortunately not newspapers. I'm not in El Salvador right now, so I can't directly access physical newspaper archives, but if you want a specific article that you know the title of, I could always ask the university to which I'm affiliated to send me a copy to give to you. When it comes to digitized newspaper archives, here's what little I know of.LoosingIt (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC) -Almost every copy of the government's bulletin Diario Oficial is available online here http://www.diariooficial.gob.sv -There are about a hundred old copies of La Prensa Grafica (mostly from 1992-1995) here cinc.ansp.gob.sv -You can find many editions of El Diario de Hoy from the year 1975 here https://dds.crl.edu/crldelivery/20029[reply]

Thank you for the additional resource links. I've added them to my list. I think we take a different view of "Rosa Amelia Guzmán, se da a conocer a mediados del siglo XX por su ardua participación política, social y ciudadana, pero desafortunadamente la historia oficial de El Salvador, solamente la ubica como madre de Armando Araujo y como la segunda esposa del expresidente de la República, Arturo Araujo".p=337 It says she was a noted pioneer in the struggle for rights, was very active, but "unfortunately" the official history treats her as if she was only a wife and mother. Obviously, that behavior wasn't limited to El Salvador, as it happened all over the world, which leaves our daughters not knowing that other women in history helped build society, their countries, shape their laws, etc. To me, she is the Doris Stevens of El Salvador; all well and good to be able to vote, but if you aren't a citizen, you have no protection under the law.

Searching the Diario, I found this (page 34), but am unclear of whether it is saying Amelia Cortez or Rosa Amelia Guzmán died in 1985. Once again, no idea if this is our lady, but that date make sense if she was born in 1900. Need to clarify but so far haven't had a response to my queries. I often spend a lot of time e-mailing academics for help. Usually they do, but not necessarily on my timetable :) . SusunW (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Nat Turner

Hello. Consensus is for merge as proposed. And you can read my closing statement. One reason I am notifying you is, I won't be doing the actual merging. I have no competence with the subject other than passing knowledge. I would not be able to effectively merge the articles. So, I am hoping you or someone else will do it. Sorry to say, I wouldn't even try. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nat Turner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nat Turner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat Turner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]