User talk:Grancafé

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

{{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)

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) Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

01:23, 23 February 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Grancafé (talk | contribs)"

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Jujutacular ^T · C 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Be my guest! that would be great! mijotoba (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

		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)

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)

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)

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)