User talk:Deriva

Please refrain from adding controversial statements to articles without backing them up with good sources, as you did to

(Brought from User talk:35.8.132.16)

I edit with some different oppinions because the article as you keep posting it (as per Flores's version is not a balanced view of Kirchner. How can you say that the payment to the IMF was a "historical" decision? How can you say that his government is or was successful if it is just a repetition of the economic cycles that any Argentinean knows only too well? What is an "authorized" opinion? Yours? Flores? Some partisan journalist? You are threatening me to revoke my right to edit in a public space and you take a partisan view of a president that is wildly viewed as in the wrong trend by almost any serious political or economic scholar. I do not see any serious citations in support of your claims in the article. I only see a bunch of people trying to make their president look good. If you are affiliated to his party you should say so. If not you should present a more balanced view or support any opinion (historical, successful or whatever it is) on some scholarly source that has validity. If not you should shut up when people edit because their opinion is as good as yours. By the way, saying you will cancell my rights to edit in a public source is basically the same Kirchner is doing with journalists and opposition leaders. The fact that you have a little group of people that claim to take a serious approach at content on Argentina does not make your claims or your opinions right. Please refrain from threatening other users because censorship is not what the internet is for.

I believe my message was clear enough on why I reverted those edits, and my position reminds the same for they were a repetitive attempt to include raw POV content into the Wikipedia. I understand that you believe the article to be biased on Kirchner's favour, but putting POV text pushing to the other side is not a solution. I trust you to find the way to express what you think it's missing in the article without incurring in such practices, and that you will support your edits with valid sources (I know it's hard, but otherwise this becomes too chaotic).

BTW: what you call a threat form my side is actually a widely used template ({{

test3}}), which is part of the official policy in Wikipedia; I'm sorry you found it agresive, but answering the way you did was neither the best approach. Thanks for your understanding, and good wiking. Mariano(t/c) 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I was really glad to see your message at Néstor Kirchner's talk page. Now, it might be a bit tedious to reach an agreement; welcome to bureaucracy! ;o) Patience, we are only human. Mariano(t/c) 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]