| Revision as of 11:59, 11 October 2013 editSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,124 edits →Talk:Mayoralty_in_Puerto_Rico: commenting← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:54, 11 October 2013 edit undoAhnoneemoos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,167 edits →Talk:Mayoralty_in_Puerto_RicoNext edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| ::Your talkpage is an appropriate place to deal with concerns regarding your communications; however, if you don't like Op47 raising the matter with you, then allow me to discus it with you. It seems you are not aware of it, but you are being incivil. It would be helpful if you adjusted your tone and VOLUME, and listened more closely to what people are telling you. I see you adopting an attitude whereby you feel that you can ignore the views of others (per ]) because you feel that you can be bold. Under ] the process is that you can be bold - but if you are reverted and the consensus is that you are wrong, then you need to accept that and move along. The consensus appears to be that it is not appropriate to have a list of the current mayors of Puerto Rico in two different places. Two possible solutions have been proposed - either have a standalone list, or merge the standalone list into the main article. Your preferred solution of maintaining two separate lists has not gained any agreement. The discussion now needs to move on to which of the two proposed solutions are best: a single list in a standalone article, or a single list in a merged article. I hope you will be able to look back over the discussion with a neutral eye, and take on board what I am saying. ''']''' ''']''' 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC) | ::Your talkpage is an appropriate place to deal with concerns regarding your communications; however, if you don't like Op47 raising the matter with you, then allow me to discus it with you. It seems you are not aware of it, but you are being incivil. It would be helpful if you adjusted your tone and VOLUME, and listened more closely to what people are telling you. I see you adopting an attitude whereby you feel that you can ignore the views of others (per ]) because you feel that you can be bold. Under ] the process is that you can be bold - but if you are reverted and the consensus is that you are wrong, then you need to accept that and move along. The consensus appears to be that it is not appropriate to have a list of the current mayors of Puerto Rico in two different places. Two possible solutions have been proposed - either have a standalone list, or merge the standalone list into the main article. Your preferred solution of maintaining two separate lists has not gained any agreement. The discussion now needs to move on to which of the two proposed solutions are best: a single list in a standalone article, or a single list in a merged article. I hope you will be able to look back over the discussion with a neutral eye, and take on board what I am saying. ''']''' ''']''' 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I didn't know that volume could be transmitted through text. Please ] and leave any preconceptions you may have when coming in. Having said that, ] does not apply here as there was no consensus reached in the initial discussion. Like I already said in the talk page, and perhaps you should have read that before wasting my time here, when no consensus is reached the initial change must be reincorporated into the article per ]. Second, it seems you are confusing ] versus ]. Consensus is based on POLICIES, not on opinions. So far no one has been able to provide which POLICY this content style violates. However, I have provided SIX guidelines that asserts CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY that such style is MORE THAN FINE and USED ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA. The discussion doesn't need to move anywhere since it's pointless. Just because four people raised their hand and said, "i don't like that" that doesn't establish consensus. Please feel free to rebuke my arguments on the article's talk page rather than here. I hope you are able to look into this impartially and through the lenses of Misplaced Pages policies as established in ]. Please refrain from posting about this matter on my Talk page again and move this conversation to the article's talk page instead. I hope too, that you take on board what I'm saying. —] (]) 13:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:54, 11 October 2013
| This is Ahnoneemoos's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| This is Ahnoneemoos's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 | This user doesn't use the View history nor the Watchlist feature on Misplaced Pages and may not be aware of what's going on. If you need to inquire him please leave a message on this talk page, otherwise he won't even notice. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|
2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Professional wrestling in Puerto Rico
That sort of information is difficult to gather, at least the actual numbers. I can add content to the section listing and sourcing a few examples of economic success such as the record crowd at Hiram Bithorn Stadium and selling out two different venues at once. I have a paper copy of the article titled "Fenómeno de asistencias", which does discuss aome of these aspects. Also, in one of the sourced articles Quiñones explained that he lost a million and a half in two years before recovering that investment. The decline in asistance can surely be sourced. Sponsors are a key component, but there is little material to source that claim since mainstream papers rarely cover the "inside" of the bussiness. However, actual numbers are extremely difficult to find unless you have access to government documents, professional wrestling is notorious for being a "money in a paper bag" industry. El Alternativo (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your edits on the "History of women of Puerto Rico" article. They are truly appreciated. The re-naming of the title from "Women in Puerto Rico" to it's current title was perfect and what I was looking for. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to you Tony! I think we have a remarkable chance to make this article a WP:GOODARTICLE. Let's keep working together to elevate it to such status. What do you say? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- What do I say? Absolutely! Since you made a GA nomination, I decided to make a temp. removal of the citation tag which may hinder said nom. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Mayoralty_in_Puerto_Rico
I really must protest at the way you are handling this page. You do not own this article. Every time anyone makes an input, you dismiss it as an opinion (e.g. ]) and yet you feel entitled to state your opinions as fact here ]. Just because I have come to a different conclusion to you, it doesn't mean I am unfamiliar with policies. To make this kind of an assertion without evidence is a WP:Personal attack.
In any case, it is you who is not reading or understanding the policies. To make it worse, you are the one that is not familiar with policies. You even have a link on your user page, the relevant policy is ignore all rules. When you have calmed down, removed this attack and started to treat me like a human being then I will try and explain why, but at present I am sick of the ascription to me of views that I do not hold followed by a personal attack.
You raise examples of other articles to support your view ] and then when I refuted your claim that these examples support your view, you accuse me of WP:OSE].
You acuse me of making changes to your comments when I have done no such thing and yet you have changed my comments :
]
I don't know what passes for civilised language in Puerto Rico, but the language that you have used here ] is unacceptable.
I am just trying to come to a civil resolution of the problem, as others have before me. I am sorry to say, that you come over as being a bully, a filibuster. Op47 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not contact me directly ever again. If you have an issue with the way I reply to you on Misplaced Pages go to WP:ANI. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your talkpage is an appropriate place to deal with concerns regarding your communications; however, if you don't like Op47 raising the matter with you, then allow me to discus it with you. It seems you are not aware of it, but you are being incivil. It would be helpful if you adjusted your tone and VOLUME, and listened more closely to what people are telling you. I see you adopting an attitude whereby you feel that you can ignore the views of others (per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) because you feel that you can be bold. Under WP:BRD the process is that you can be bold - but if you are reverted and the consensus is that you are wrong, then you need to accept that and move along. The consensus appears to be that it is not appropriate to have a list of the current mayors of Puerto Rico in two different places. Two possible solutions have been proposed - either have a standalone list, or merge the standalone list into the main article. Your preferred solution of maintaining two separate lists has not gained any agreement. The discussion now needs to move on to which of the two proposed solutions are best: a single list in a standalone article, or a single list in a merged article. I hope you will be able to look back over the discussion with a neutral eye, and take on board what I am saying. SilkTork 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't know that volume could be transmitted through text. Please WP:AGF and leave any preconceptions you may have when coming in. Having said that, WP:BRD does not apply here as there was no consensus reached in the initial discussion. Like I already said in the talk page, and perhaps you should have read that before wasting my time here, when no consensus is reached the initial change must be reincorporated into the article per WP:BEBOLD. Second, it seems you are confusing WP:POLL versus WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is based on POLICIES, not on opinions. So far no one has been able to provide which POLICY this content style violates. However, I have provided SIX guidelines that asserts CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY that such style is MORE THAN FINE and USED ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA. The discussion doesn't need to move anywhere since it's pointless. Just because four people raised their hand and said, "i don't like that" that doesn't establish consensus. Please feel free to rebuke my arguments on the article's talk page rather than here. I hope you are able to look into this impartially and through the lenses of Misplaced Pages policies as established in WP:CONSENSUS. Please refrain from posting about this matter on my Talk page again and move this conversation to the article's talk page instead. I hope too, that you take on board what I'm saying. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)