Discussione:Alejandro Peña Esclusa

message: This page appears to contain potentially libelous claims without source, that should be removed immediately - this needs to be addressed by an editor in Italian wikipedia.Lindorm (msg) 18:01, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text: Removed every sentence containing potentially libelous claims and lacking neutral sources (it turned out to be all of them except one). There is sourced information on the English page. Someone please translate that.Lindorm (msg) 22:32, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  Sorry, but the way to contribute in Wikipedia in Italian (not "Italian Wikipedia") is not the one you used. You can not come here with your claims and just based on them remove the whole contents of the voice just because you don't like the way it's written and you question the sources. This page is already labeled as "sources to be checked" (there are sources, by the way, but their reliability is to be checked) and in any case the controversial contents are presented using a dubitative form. If you like contributing to Wikipedia in Italian you're welcome, but you have to follow the rules in force here. Your edit has been cancelled. Thanks. --L736Edimmi 22:37, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text: After you annulled the change I repeated it. Libelous claims should be deleted IMMEDIATELY according to Wikipedia rules. I gave 4 hours notice but nobody has stepped in to correct it, so it has to be deleted until sources are available. If you want to re-insert it, do it WITH sources.Lindorm (msg) 22:39, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  Sorry guy but "libelous claim" should be demonstrated and presented as such. Mayybe you're not so familiar with the italian language, but the contents of the page are not presented as "matter of facts" but in a dubitative form. By the way, the page already asks for more reliable sources. Please respect the rules and don't apply here rules where they don't apply. Thanks.--L736Edimmi 22:44, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  Please read the Wikipedia policy for articles on living persons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons as it clearly states that when in doubt, delete immediately. Your argument is hurting the person of this article. If you really insist on keeping that info, THEN GO TO THE ENGLISH PAGE AND GET THE SOURCES and more information to make the article balanced, and not a hit-job by communists, because that is what it is now.Lindorm (msg) 22:51, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  Guy, this is Wikipeda in italian and, as all the Wikipedia, we have our own rules which may differ from the ones in English Wikipedia. The English page, by the way, is highly biased and unbalanced as well since also there the biography is exposed just from one point of view. The immediate deletion for biography contents here is foreseen for clear personal offences, and this is not the case of this page. If the page is biased, we mark it as such and highlight why it's biased but, unless there's something illegal or against our rules, the contents are kept to allow the proper reworking. --L736Edimmi 22:59, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  First, I don't recall that we have dropped the titles, "guy". Second, thank you for putting in the NPOV flag. Third, there is a big difference between an article about a person being biased positively and negatively, especially when as in this case he is accused of very serious crimes without indicating a source. Forth, there is no Italian translation of those rules, why you would do yourself a favor if you followed the rules that do exist, since otherwise you expose the Wikipedia Foundation to lawsuits for libel. Even with the NPOV flag it remains a hit-job by Chavista communists.Lindorm (msg) 23:19, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  First, you dropped information that "was" referenced with sources, even if questionable, and you dropped an information related to a visit to Italian politicians that really was somehow argued here: so, you dropped sourced information "improperly", just because you don't like the political flavour of those sources and in a somehow arbitrary way: according to the rules of Wikipedia in Italian, this can be considered as a kind of vandalism. Second, you're welcome. Third, if a page is biased, it's biased, no matter if the bias is positive or negative: bias shall be avoided, full stop, and it's not correct even to present this person as a kind of "freedom martir", exactly as it's not correct to present it as a "monster". Fourth, tf there is no Italian translations for the rules coming from en.wiki, this means simply that "those rules don't apply to it.wiki", as I was telling you: there's no implicit application, and you can't claim those rules as a justification for your intervention. Fifth, the fact itself that you defined the page at lest twice with a political characterization of "communism", means that your intervention is highly biased from a political point of view and therefore not acceptable. Please respect the rules.--L736Edimmi 13:35, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)
thread_title: Libelous

message: A sentence was inserted by user 24.127.208.87 saying that "his allied consider him a political prisoner," and L736E immediately deleted it for not making it clear "who" said that. Although the user later re-inserted the statement with a reference, this is OUTRAGEOUS considering that the same administrator allows potentially libelous claims to stand, without any source, not even "his ideological enemies accuse him of...". Read the earlier exchange below under Libelous, and I think you will find, as me, that administrator L736E is acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Venezuelan de facto dictator Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias.Lindorm (msg) 23:39, 17 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text: This is really out of any common sense. You performed edits and deletions against the rules active on it.wiki and I'm just acting to have these rules respected. There's no political bias in my actions, just the task to have all users respecting the rules - and since you didn't respect that rules, I have to delete your edits. I'd like you also to notice that in my interventions here there's no single word nor statement based on political positions nor there are any expressions of political ideas to support my interventions but only technical explainations and technical reasons. I'd like also to point out that the only political statements you can read in this talk page, all come from your side, as clearly evidenced also by this last intervention of yours. So, if there's someone openly biased, that's you. And about claiming my "biasing" and my supposed attitude as "propaganda mouthpiece", I just recall you that on it.wiki personal attacks against other users are forbidden and may lead to a temporary ban. So I kindly invite you being very careful on your words. Last: if you were an italian user on this italian wiki, this behaviour of yours would have been flagged by far as "problematic" or "vandalic" and if this didn't happen (yet), it's just because you're not an italian-speaking user. But also this is close to come to an end, now. --L736Edimmi 13:43, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  You are referring to rules that only you know. That is not how we do things in the free and democratic part of the world. I referred explicitly to the rules for articles on living persons, in English, and you failed to provide a counter-reference to those rules in Italian. The failure to follow the rules are thus on your part, not mine. Furthermore, I have not accused you of being a mouthpiece of Hugo Chávez Frías, only as acting as one. It is possible to act as a mouthpiece by naïveté, ignorance; and perhaps that is the reason, you probably know that better than me. But to let unsubstantiated accusations against a man who is so obviously imprisoned on false grounds stand, is beyond the pale. Beyond the pale...Lindorm (msg) 00:33, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text: To say en.wiki policies have no effects on it.wiki you don't need any counter-reference. Anyway won't need any source to undestand that personal attacks are not allowed on both en and it.wiki but a 36h block will be a clear explanation of this.--Vito (msg) 01:59, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)
thread_title: Moderator L736E is openly biased

message: Dal momento che giudicavo la voce eccessivamente schierata, con gravi affermazioni senza fonti e con fonti altrettanto schierate, ho cominciato l'opera di sistemazione. Non sono un esperto in materia e non è detto che abbia fatto un buon lavoro, anche perché ho trovato molto difficile reperire fonti "autorevoli" neutrali. Nel redigere la voce mi sono quindi dovuto affidare anche a fonti di parte ("Fuerza Solidaria" e, perché no? "Il Tempo" da una parte e "Gennaro Carotenuto" dall'altra) ma ho tentato sempre di utilizzarle in maniera il più possibile neutrale, che poi ci sia riuscito è un'altra faccenda. Tutto questo per dire che occorrerebbe che alla voce fosse data una controllata da qualcuno più esperto di me, prima di (eventualmente) togliere gli avvisi. -- Lepido (msg) 14:45, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text: La voce ora sembra decisamente meno squilibrata rispetto alla stesura originale. Trovo anche questo modo di procedere decisamente molto più corretto di quello adottato dall'altro utente. --L736Edimmi 18:05, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text: This is much better, thank you Lepido. One observation, though: The paragraph with the accusations from the AP article is taken directly from the propaganda of the dictatorship in Venezuela, and is thus highly biased. To counter that, it is essential to let Alejandro Peña Esclusa defend himself. On English Wikipedia (i.e., English-language Wikipedia) there are links to videos that he himself has recorded with his defense, before being arrested. He could do that since he discovered how they were planting evidence against him. You can also use as references articles on Fuerza Solidaria and UnoAmerica. To find neutral sources will be impossible, so the best we can do is to present both side's arguments. 74.164.41.7 (msg) 22:26, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  Mi pare comunque che l'articolo di AP riporti entrambe le versioni, quando ad esempio afferma che la moglie ha detto: «These people dared to plant those explosives in a very crude way because they put some explosives in the drawer of our 8-year-old girl's desk,» o che l'avvocato ha detto: «he was not allowed to enter the apartment during the raid». Inoltre nell'articolo si afferma che «Critics of the president accuse his government of using criminal prosecutions to intimidate opponents and try to silence dissent — a charge that Chavez denies.» Mi pare che quindi AP dia spazio ad entrambe le versioni, ed è quanto più neutrale io abbia trovato. Wikipedia non è un bollettino politico e secondo me la voce ora offre numerosi spunti e fonti perché chiunque voglia approfondire possa farlo -- Lepido (msg) 23:09, 18 lug 2010 (CEST)

text: Sono arrivato qui bloccando l'utente per gli insulti ad L763E e vorrei informarvi (ma l'avrete già notato) che la pagina di en.wiki portata a mo' di esempio dall'utente è stata da lui pesantamente modificata. --Vito (msg) 02:06, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text: Se la voce va migliorata la si migliori, ma non tenete conto neanche di una parola di quello che ha detto Lindorm. E' un utente chiaramente NNPOV e, visto che sta girando le varie wiki solo per POVvare, io direi di bloccarlo direttamente infinito Jalo 16:14, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)
replies: text:  D'accordo sul ban infinito come "utenza programmatica" trovo ovviamente altamente inopportuno comminarglielo io stesso, quindi passo la mano a qualche altro sysop. L736Edimmi 17:24, 19 lug 2010 (CEST)
thread_title:  Revisione totale della voce 

message: In a letter dated 2011-01-17, nine senators from Bolivia have written to Hugo Chavez and demanded that he release Alejandro Peña Esclusa, whom they describe as being imprisoned illegally in order to silence him. At the time he was imprisoned he was heading a group of lawyers who were preparing a prosecution of Hugo Chávez for Crimes Against Humanity. The scanned letter can be read here http://eju.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CARTA-P%C3%81GINA-1.jpg and page 2 here http://eju.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CARTA-P%C3%81GINA-2.jpg 98.254.64.229 (msg) 13:55, 22 gen 2011 (CET)
replies: text: Links seem to be broken, anyway a newspaper article would be better. --Vito (msg) 14:18, 22 gen 2011 (CET)
thread_title:  Letter from 9 Bolivian Senators 

message: Gentili utenti,
ho appena modificato 1 collegamento/i esterno/i sulla pagina Alejandro Peña Esclusa. Per cortesia controllate la mia modifica. Se avete qualche domanda o se fosse necessario far sì che il bot ignori i link o l'intera pagina, date un'occhiata a queste FAQ. Ho effettuato le seguenti modifiche:
*Aggiunta di  su http://www.vtv.gob.ve/noticias-nacionales/39578
*Aggiunta del link all'archivio https://web.archive.org/web/20110716152422/http://www.laverdad.com/detnotic.php?CodNotic=37828 per http://www.laverdad.com/detnotic.php?CodNotic=37828
Fate riferimento alle FAQ per informazioni su come correggere gli errori del bot
Saluti.—InternetArchiveBot (Segnala un errore) 14:21, 4 set 2017 (CEST)
thread_title:  Collegamenti esterni modificati 

message: Gentili utenti,
ho appena modificato 1 collegamento/i esterno/i sulla pagina Alejandro Peña Esclusa. Per cortesia controllate la mia modifica. Se avete qualche domanda o se fosse necessario far sì che il bot ignori i link o l'intera pagina, date un'occhiata a queste FAQ. Ho effettuato le seguenti modifiche:
*Aggiunta del link all'archivio https://web.archive.org/web/20080406140819/http://www.iltempo.it/interni_esteri/2007/03/10/165024-parla_alejandro_pea_esclusa_italia_aiuti_asse_terrore.shtml per http://www.iltempo.it/interni_esteri/2007/03/10/165024-parla_alejandro_pea_esclusa_italia_aiuti_asse_terrore.shtml
Fate riferimento alle FAQ per informazioni su come correggere gli errori del bot
Saluti.—InternetArchiveBot (Segnala un errore) 05:46, 5 feb 2018 (CET)
thread_title:  Collegamenti esterni modificati