Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive 13

message: *Can we unprotect this page?  Whatever vandalism there was, none of the most recent edits were vandalism, so the page was fine.  This is a current event article that needs to be opened.  -- TexasDawg 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What pic? You dont appear to have edited the article at all. TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not, but when I got to the article, it had a picture of human genitals and I went to delete it and when I clicked the save page button, it was no longer there. I think I might have done it before I logged in... check for IP edits. But, I ask again: Why is this page not semi-protected? It could benefit a lot from it. At least until we know for sure that he is dead or alive.--Chili14 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How gross. And I agree. Try the requst for page protection page or if there are any admins out there? TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a vandal magnet because a lot of people dislike Fidel really really really much; and they're reminded by it by the recent media attention to him. As they are too stupid to engage in actual political work, they think they somehow discredit Fidel by inserting picture of genitals into an article read by absolutely noone living in Cuba. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now semi-protected. I just logged out and tried to edit this article and it said 'View Source". So that's done.--Chili14 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is also on the main page, and many pages that get linked to the main page are heavy vandal targets. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh I know. I don't like him either. Protest against the dictatorship anywhere and everywhere, but NOT in the encyclopedia! And considering the many vandals stating his evil, a dictator, a piece of genitals etc, it's quite clear they don't like him. It just shows these right-wingers are just as stupid as the left-wingers vandalizing George W. Bush. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated before, I do not think the vandalism might be politically motivated at all, since vandals want to insert their dicks whenever they can on anything. Plus, with it being on the main page, their resulting damage can be big, and not hard to find since it is linked there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of genitals

message: Look at this folks.  This is from his Talk page:  
"Hi Bruce
Thank you for your constructive edits to Cuban Five I've had enough of Wikipedia for today, I need a break. A few suggestions: add info outlining arguments for why the trial was so flawed. I think the conclusions of the UN commission of why the trial was arbitrary[5], or general conclusions from the overturning would be even more convincing than the Amnesty claims, which are not very strong. Also, the Cuban Five website seems a good resource of legal documents. Surely there's plenty reliable material there we can refer to[6]. I think we can make agood article out of it if we include good bits of court material, and a solid sections on criticism of the trial, and to balance that to include prosecution arguments too. Jens Nielsen 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Demfourlife, What do you need to be happy?  Is there anything we can do to get along with you?  Seriously, I hope there is a way we can co-exist and I hope there is a way to share and co-edit this article without aggravating each other so much.  I am willing to hear your answer and suggestions. BruceHallman 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you can understand that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being fully 'pro-Castro' and 1 being fully 'anti-Castro', that you are at 1 or 2.  With neutrality being a 5, then, most edits (not made by you) are movements in the 'Pro-Castro' direction.  This is a normal and natural result of the fact that Wikipedia is a 'shared' thing.  None of us own it.  Hopefully you can learn to be at peace with the fact that we all must share Wikipedia with other people who usually do not agree with us.  If you can learn this, Wikipedia will become a forum for (sometimes strained) cooperation between people who don't always agree, not a forum for fighting.  BruceHallman 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I promise to try to understand and appreciate you, even when we disagree.  BruceHallman 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruce Hallman

message: Did Castro first become Secretary, or did he become the first Secretary or was he "The First Secretary" of the Communist Party? --Ezeu 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion about the post of "Secretary" 

message: The article seems to ignore large portions of Castro's reign, focusing merely on his Cold War interactions. Given that the cold war is long over, and Castro has some influence throughout the Caribbean and the Americas this seems 'odd'. I realize that Cuba is a closed society, but surely events within Cuba - good and bad - do deserve some mention. And I have no info, else I would've done it myself.
--Blakdogg 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird approach ? 

message: I want to put together a table of his political actions. These are the links I have assembled for research. Please contribute. Thanks. translations of his speeches and edicts List of links to links to history of cuba  Mrdthree 04:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to clarify certain aspects of Castro's policies on this page which I agree is presently of a poor standard, but remember that this is a biography page of an individual. All these pieces of research have been expanded at length on the 50 or so articles relating to Cuban politics and economy. I understand that the longevity of Castro's dominance and his micromanagement in Cuba sets a rare precident. But I wouldn't want you to waste your time delving into an area well represented elsewhere. To give you an example - one of your links relates to the Economy of Cuba during the 90s, is this worthy of expansion on this page, given that the chief advocate of policy was a team headed by Carlos Lage? They just need to be linked from here - which I believe they are. Please familiarise yourself with the many pages on this complex subject.--Zleitzen 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Political Actions

message: yo wat's up in the hood castro
How long do you folks in the "know" plan on keeping the Fidel Castro page locked?  Let's give others a chance to participate.Demfourlife 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no clue when the lock will be removed, but every time we had, we had major problems. Probably will wait maybe until the weekend and see if it can be unprotected (but the move lock will still be in place).  User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The title of this section was originally all in caps. -- Kjkolb 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove lock, let others participate

message: How many more pics of this guy dow we need?  We have him smiling, hugging, marching, talking, romancing, etc.  Do you really think we need any more?Demfourlife 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I took two out for dubious copyright issues. So now, we have 6. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job Zscout! Demfourlife 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it should be noted that George W. Bush has 16 pictures featuring said Bush, many which could be considered offensive if applying your very weak standards; such as the one where he is in his uniform (considering his disputed military service), the Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law picture, as it is, well, a law that not everybody loves, the Bush, Mahmoud Abbas, and Ariel Sharon picture as both Abbas and Sharon have been described as terrorists, the picture of Bush with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as it shows George W Bush walking on a red carpet, another one of him with a red carpet, etcetera, etcetera! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned earlier, Castro != Bush. What works for the Castro article might or might not work for Bush, and vice versa. I know that many of the photos on Bush's articles are in the public domain/free license, with the exception for maybe one or two. The photos I kept in the article are under some type of free license; the red carpet photo and the falling pic are not used at all. The gallery of Castro photos is at the Wikimedia Commons, which is one of the reasons why we have that link at the bottom. The falling pic was deleted by me, since I know now that the photo will not be used and we cannot have un-used fair use photos in the article. Personally, unless one of the current photos faces some kind of dubious copyright issues, I wish for the images here to stick, and all of the other free ones get sent to the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I was making a point in response to Dem, not arguing that we should have more pictures. Although; he has been in power for a darn long time - way longer than mr Bush. That means there are a lot more to show - in example a picture of him and the Pope; as that would be a picture not showing only him and his beard (we've had enough of that), but also, well, the Pope, which is a very interesting juxtaposition indeed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I wish to use a photo of the Pope, I do not think and free images of them are out there on the Net, so I think we should avoid that pic for now. And if it is free, just stick it at the Commons, since that is mainly a gallery. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8 pics of Fidel and counting

message: In the box to the right it refers to Castro as having been in office since 1976 at the top.  This is contradicted further down the box.  
--KenWalker | Talk 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it again, Ken. President from 1976, Prime Minister from 1959. --Zleitzen 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, got it, thanks! KenWalker | Talk 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Office Since

message: "Me llamo Fidel Castro." comes out as "I am called Fidel I castrate." Arbitrary username 16:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm> Interesting. Perhaps we should include it in the article? </sarcasm> Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babelfish 

message: *I think we should add a link at the top of this article letting people know that updates to the ongoing transfer of duties event and updates to Castro's health should go to this article. -- TexasDawg 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of Presidential Duties link

message: Today’s photos of Castro “recovering”  are much better than yesterday’s, however the lack of clinical paraphernalia and most odd shadows, can be taken to suggest that either the photographs have been altered, or that Castro has become a vampire so I naturally “believe” the latter.  One would think that the use of a respirator would require shaving Castro’s beard.   For a rousing discussion see  Xe xe El Jigue 8-14-06
:Here are more hospital bed photos, http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/secciones/siempre_con_fidel/art-051.html, though I can't say I see the 'most odd shadows'.  Maybe a credible forensic photo expert might be found with a WP:V opinion?  BruceHallman 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if the photos are faked then the video footage of the meeting must have been created using a computer generated or robotic Castro. Either that or your vampire theory holds true? Keep us posted on the latest developments, El Jigue. And it's good to see you remain sceptical about the whole thing. (note my characteristic English spelling of the word sceptical)! --Zleitzen 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos of Castro have odd shadows suggesting he has joined the undead

message: I tried to revert it but the strangeness stayed. So I am leaving it alone. Just want you to know I was not trying to vandalize it. Something quirky happened. Maybe because the article is so long, it can't hanle any more. 
Anyway, I decided not to try to revert it again because what is happening is so odd. But it is screwed up now, at the bottom of the Succession section. Flinders 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was able to figure out how to fix it shortly after.  Flinders 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I tried to add a footnote and something strange happened