Talk:Elvira Arellano

message: Just wondering what exactly is POV about the section indicated as it is the same as when you guys wrote it a long time ago, except for me changing Immigration and Customs service to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. User:LordPathogen16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific please? The additions I made come from a legal brief with the information stipulated to by Ms. Arellano herself. User:LordPathogen16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so before you accused me of being anti-Arellano, no I am what pro-Arellano? All I did was quote from a legal brief filed and accepted by a US Federal court on behalf of her son that she agreed to which stipulates the facts as they are known. I still ask... even nicely... please provide specific examples. Thx User:LordPathogen18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you have no examples. Thought so. User:LordPathogen 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: User:LordPathogen has objected to my tagging their comments with the  template. My view: the edit history stands as proof, as well as last week's sock puppet banning and LP's blocking. --evrik (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evrik, you have no right to delete my heading here and move my comments under your own. At least show that much decency. You act like Wikipedia is your own personal fiefdom. Secondly, I do tag my comments though apparently not enough to satisfy you. I'll ask you when I want some help in that matter. As for SPA, what part of "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts" is unclear to you? Sockpuppetry I still dispute and as for blocks, your pal Ramsey2006 has been blocked here as well. As for the election, seems I hit a sore spot... And btw, it's not too hard to find since it is linked off your own bio page LOL... And since the article on SPA is "just and essay," I guess you interpet that to allow boorish behaviour on your part, huh? User:LordPathogen 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, it's not like it is a government secret on a public wiki where you just click to see a user's contribs... I plan to keep on reporting you because frankly dude, you are outa control. And kindly note, I removed your name from the header. Let's see if you are a hypocrite or not now since there is no reason to delete it now... User:LordPathogen19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor editor behavior

message: As the article on Wikipedia:Single-purpose account clearly states, "use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you." It also clearly states "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts. " I have explained multiple times to this user exactly why I do not edit several articles as he chooses to do. He still is not satisfied. As for the sock puppet issue, I still deny that was the case. Hypocritically, however, Evrik is more than willing, even eager, to brand me a criminal in Wikipedia yet seems utterly incapable doing so with the subject of this article who was convicted of a felony and has an outstanding order for deportation. No he removes those categories (Mexican Criminal, Fugitive) because they upset his POV. I consider this a personal attack upon me in an attempt by Evrik to sway public opinion rather than make cogent counter-arguements to my postings. If it continues, I will report him which isn't going to do much to help him get his coveted Wikimedia Board of Trustees slot. User:LordPathogen18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evrik, you have no right to delete my heading here and move my comments under your own. At least show that much decency. You act like Wikipedia is your own personal fiefdom. Secondly, I do tag my comments though apparently not enough to satisfy you. I'll ask you when I want some help in that matter. As for SPA, what part of "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts" is unclear to you? Sockpuppetry I still dispute and as for blocks, your pal Ramsey2006 has been blocked here as well. As for the election, seems I hit a sore spot... And btw, it's not too hard to find since it is linked off your own bio page LOL... And since the article on SPA is "just and essay," I guess you interpet that to allow boorish behaviour on your part, huh? User:LordPathogen 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, it's not like it is a government secret on a public wiki where you just click to see a user's contribs... I plan to keep on reporting you because frankly dude, you are outa control. And kindly note, I removed your name from the header. Let's see if you are a hypocrite or not now since there is no reason to delete it now... User:LordPathogen19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor editor behavior and harrassment

message: Now that the debate has boiled down to just one over categorization, I thought I'd add my two cents.
*I think Ms. Arellano probably does belong in :Category:Fugitives.
*The problem with the category Mexican criminals is that Ms. Arellano has not (that anyone knows) been convicted of breaking Mexican laws, which is what one would tend to assume about people so categorized. If anything, she should be categorized as an American criminal, since her crimes are in violation of US law. Compare the categorization of Ángel Maturino Reséndiz, who, while a much more heinous criminal, had an immigration status comparable to that of Ms. Arellano. I won't put it on, but I won't erase it if someone else does.
::Thanks Rockero for your comments. I suggested Mexican criminals because of the narrowing path listed on the top of the category page for it, namely: "People: By occupation: Criminals: By nationality: Mexican." So, as I read the category, it was designed to list criminals by their nationality, not by where they committed their crimes. As for the case of Résendiz, he committed crimes on both sides of the border but was convicted and executed in the US. Nevertheless, he has a similar narrowing: "People: By occupation: Criminals: Murderers: By nationality: Mexican." Anyway... Thanks! LordPathogen LordPathogen 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not trying to be pedantic, but she was not convicted in a court of law for a white-collar crime or an Immigration law violation. She was tried and convicted for using a counterfeit social security card with the number belonging to someone else, which is a felony. That's identity theft at best. As for the immigration violations, signing the documents she did (stipulating to the facts) effectively waived any trial meaning an immediate Order for Deportation was issued. It's all in the legal brief. LordPathogen 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, don't like those?  How about "Mexicans engaging in fraud" or "Mexicans engaging in forgery"?  Fraud and forgery are both felonies.  Regarding her conviction and the order for deportation - if she is allowed to stay, it is my understanding that she can always file to have the records expunged.  Chicaneo 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The links for reference nos. 1 & 4 are not working properly.  If somebody knows where they go (or has the time to look it up) could you please restore them?  Thanks.  70.120.88.79 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: I would like to take this back to the version at  20:36, 9 May 2007. I am going to create a working draft Talk:Elvira Arellano/draft where we can add the sources added since then. This was the last point where I feel the article was neutral. --evrik (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty vague again and does not meet the standard as outlined above for NPOV disputes. But I'll tell you what, I won't say anything else about it in this section. I'd like to hear from others here Rockero, Will Beback, Chicaneo etc. if they feel as you do about it. If they do, fine, keep the NPOV dispute tag. But if not... will you remove it? Oh, and by the way, please remove the attempt at a spa tag you left since  you were told by MastCell to remove those... --LordPathogen 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE:  Evrik is told to "please stop using the tag in any form" again by MastCell --LordPathogen 18:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't set such low expectations for myself --LordPathogen 18:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course you are, because you've decided and that's what really matters, right? You don't have to listen to admins or get consensus etc. That stuff is for lesser mortals --LordPathogen 13:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: This contains a significant amount of material (especially pages 3-7) that was removed by user User:Evrik when he unilaterally reverted the article back a month. Read it and decide for yourself as to whether this data should be included or not... --LordPathogen 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the three editors who commented agreed with me. As for your bibdaily links, it has been included as one of the references, or didn't you see that? --evrik (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So one day of discussion and an informal agreement between you and your "ally" gives you the right to undo edits going back a month made by me, BorgQueen, Will Beback, Chicaneo and Rockero? --LordPathogen 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The previous version of the page was approximately 50% derived from a single primary source, as interpreted by an editor with a definate POV. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. It is difficult for lay persons without specialized knoweledge to appropiately interpret primary sources. Without legal training one might have difficulty in distinguishing between a legal brief filed on somebody's behalf, and a court order by a judge, for example. The danger of primary sources being misrepresented is significant. --Ramsey2006 16:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately my four degrees prepared me well for such circumstances as well as the ability to recognize manure when I read it... (see above)  --LordPathogen 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon reflection I agree it is not simply a legal brief but rather a "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER" by the judge who adjudicated the case which makes is an even more reputable source. --LordPathogen 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''[http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Arellano%20order%209-29-06.pdf Legal brief filed on behalf of Saul Arellano with facts stipulated to by his mother Elvira Arellano]'''

message: *This version contains facts from the above legal brief, facts conceded by Ms. Arellano herself. Note: "Defendants 'do not contest the ability of Rev. Coleman to commence this proceeding on behalf of Saul Arellano...'” (page 1) and "Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following facts, which for purposes of this motion the Court  accepts as true.'" (page 3) as well as "In support of their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Defendants have provided evidence supporting the following facts — facts that Plaintiff apparently concedes." (page 4). In short, Rev. Coleman is authorized to sue on their behalf and to enter facts into evidence to the Court. Thus, the 08 JUNE 2007 version is much more complete --LordPathogen 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuous reverts and removal of tags may be considered as vandalism. I suggest that if the parties cannot reach a positive agreement for the good of this article, then the situation should be taken up with the mediation committee. Tony the Marine 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvira_Arellano&diff=137029936&oldid=136796097 '''See what was reverted by Evrik and honestly decide for yourself which version of the article is superior...''']

message: I'm getting a little tired of this nonsense.  Something needs to be done to put a stop it. I am nobody's sockpuppet. And I don't appreciate other editors comparing my comments with fecal matter, either. --Ramsey2006 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me you are the one who started with references down there. I just followed your lead as witnessed by this edit comment of your: "07:03, 4 June 2007 Ramsey2006 (Talk | contribs) (72,373 bytes) (→Scope of WikiProject:Mexican-Americans - Don't ASSume.)" --LordPathogen 14:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody, please be civil to one another and avoid making personal remarks. Civility is a requirement, not a suggestion, and uncivil editors may find themselves blocked.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disingenuous false accusations and fecal references 

message: (1) The sentence U.S. Law does not recognize the right of sanctuary needs a citation.
(2) Re the sentence that included 4.9 million - the 4.9 millon has been taken out and replaced with “millions”.  This is because the estimate of 4.9 million was done by a representative of the Mexican Government.  The 4.9 million figure should come from US records, perhaps census information.
(3) Reference #12 the article by Jason Byassee was an opinion/editorial.  In the spirit of NPOV I’m removing that link and all references to that link.Chicaneo 10:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact section 

message: In light of the recent requests for mediation (rejected) and arbitration (rejected), and per User:Will Beback's recommendation for a RfC on the arbitration page, I am requesting comments regarding issues on which we have already reached consensus.  Please note that I am not asking for comments on issues that editors feel need to be revisited, I am simply trying to compile a list of all issues on which we have reached consensus from November 2006 (date of first entry on talk page) to date.  Once this is done, any editor is free to seek consensus change per Wikipedia:Consensus, which is official policy.  All editors are expected to follow Wikipedia:Etiquette guidelines and any editor who engages in disruptive editing will be dealt with according to the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline.  It important to point out that on Wikipedia:Etiquette, Larry Sanger states “Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.”  And that is what I intend to do.  Chicaneo 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about the same thing myself when one editor deleted the WikiProject:Mexican-Americans template and then it was restored (by you, actually).  I could not figure out why someone outside the WikiProject could delete our template and then proceed to argue that the article was not within the scope of the WikiProject when he was not even a member of the Project.  It was all very bizzare because the WikiProject members choose which articles to place on the Project list and if a member does not agree, we discuss.  Editors outside the Project really have no say about which articles we choose to adopt.  I don't know of a specific policy, I only know of our procedures/standard MO.  The template removing/restoring took place during the edit war and if the consensus statement regarding the template is not needed, then by all means, let's strike it.  --Chicaneo 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I agree.  I think Ramsey2006's point was that a consensus statement about the use of the WikiProject:Mexican-American template is a non-issue, a moot point.  Therefore, why should we have a statement at all?  I move to strike it.  --Chicaneo 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy it is probably best to err on the side of caution. Chicaneo 06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: strike-through: --Chicaneo 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Consensus 

message: Based on the above discussion the following terms of consensus have been reached to date:
*Discussion regarding the use of the term “illegal alien” vs. “undocumented worker” took place and a consensus was reached that the disputed labels would be dropped and the article would simply state the facts. The final result was approval of the wording in the intro section and the first sentence of the history section. 
*A consensus was reached that it was OK to use Category:Mexican American leaders. 
*A consensus was reached that it was OK to place Elvira’s name in Category:Fugitives.   
*A consensus was reached that Category:Mexican criminals should not be used. 
*A consensus was reached that the article be taken back to a neutral version prior to the edit war. The change was made and the article was reverted to the version of 20:36, 9 May 2007 by Chicaneo.
--Chicaneo 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus reached 

message: == Mistaken Analysis of the Rush bill ==
The article states, in reference to Rep. Rush's bill to grant  green cards to Arellano and 33 others, that 
:::Passage of this bill into law would affect millions of children been born in the United States whose parents are threatened with deportation.
It is in fact unclear why Rep. Rush's bill, which explicitly enumerates the 34 people affected, would impact "millions of children" -- as a matter of fact, it is not even clear if there are in fact millions of children who were born in the US to parents who are threatened with deportation. Unless there is serious objection, I will remove this passage.
Malatinszky 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I have no objection to the sentence you propose to remove.  Just looked at the CBS News reference (ref #6) used and the article does not even refer the the bill.  What it refers to is immigration legislation in general.  In fact, I'll remove it for you.  Thanks.  --Chicaneo 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the term "convicted felon", though true (since stealing a person's SSN is a felony), is being used in the intro to demonize Ms. Arellano. That's pretty unnecessary, unless the intent is to divert from being unbiased and try to paint Ms. Arellano as some kind of ogrish axe-murderer or serial carjacker, in which case it should of course be left in. Acidqueen5426 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That phrase is unnecessary for the lead, because the sentence goes on to say she's notable for living illegally in the U.S. It also introduces loaded language that violates the WP:NPOV policy. That phrase has been reverted before, and it apparently snuck in again over the winter holidays. I have reverted it once again. -Amatulic (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussions

message: The article states, in reference to Rep. Rush's bill to grant  green cards to Arellano and 33 others, that 
:::Passage of this bill into law would affect millions of children been born in the United States whose parents are threatened with deportation.
It is in fact unclear why Rep. Rush's bill, which explicitly enumerates the 34 people affected, would impact "millions of children" -- as a matter of fact, it is not even clear if there are in fact millions of children who were born in the US to parents who are threatened with deportation. Unless there is serious objection, I will remove this passage.
Malatinszky 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I have no objection to the sentence you propose to remove.  Just looked at the CBS News reference (ref #6) used and the article does not even refer the the bill.  What it refers to is immigration legislation in general.  In fact, I'll remove it for you.  Thanks.  --Chicaneo 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken Analysis of the Rush bill 

message: Before this article goes off the deep end again ... please remember, we're trying to work by consensus. --evrik (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: Maybe someone can put this information in the article that the criminal, illegal alien has now been detained. Die4Dixie 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks Like She Finally Got Picked UP 

message: The current sentence says that she is notable for living in the USA illegally. No time right now to check on what it used to say, but this makes about as much sense as saying that she is notable because of the number of books that she had overdue at the public library. It doesn't set her apart from millions of other undocumented folks who live out perfectly ordinary mundane lives in this country, and whose names have never appeared in print. Will somebody please check the history and find out what the old wording was and revert it? --Ramsey2006 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the term "convicted felon", though true (since stealing a person's SSN is a felony), is being used in the intro to demonize Ms. Arellano. That's pretty unnecessary, unless the intent is to divert from being unbiased and try to paint Ms. Arellano as some kind of ogrish axe-murderer or serial carjacker, in which case it should of course be left in. Acidqueen5426 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That phrase is unnecessary for the lead, because the sentence goes on to say she's notable for living illegally in the U.S. It also introduces loaded language that violates the WP:NPOV policy. That phrase has been reverted before, and it apparently snuck in again over the winter holidays. I have reverted it once again. -Amatulic (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Elvira Arellano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214100011/http://www.breitbart.com:80/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4OQQ80&show_article=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified