Disputatio:Emmanuel Rodríguez Villegas
 |
Disputationes orbae Hae disputationes raro visitantur, quia pagina huic coniuncta deleta est. Quaesumus, noli novas disputationes hic creare. |
 |
Auctores conexi Vicipaediani hic numerati conexionem quandam cum re in pagina coniuncta habent aut videntur habere:
Huic pittacio annotatio addita est: Conexio in capitulo § Crosswiki spam disputatur.
Iudicium neutrale paginae coniunctae observabitur. Hic monitus die , recensione no. 3921680 labente, additus est. |
Crosswiki spam
<Factum cum Google Translate>
Administratores rogo ut sciant hanc biographiam a subiecto articuli, olim usore Wikipediae Hispanicae et Nahuatl, qui propter continuas difficultates editoriales globaliter prohibitus et obstructus est, perpetuo recreari. Nomen usoris eius est Marrovi (abbreviatio veri nominis).
Quantum scimus, usor imaginem scriptoris adoptare coepit ut eius inclusionem in Wikipedia cogat, etiamsi linguis minus frequentatis sicut haec, ad voluptatem personalem, esse debeat.
Hic usor multa damna Wikipediae Hispanicae intulit, quod communitatem illius propositi mobilizavit ut quam plurima corrigeret.
Categorias pro eius rationibus multiplicibus adiunxi; nunc conatur hanc inscriptionem Latine per rationes temporarias conservare. Cum hoc casus LTA ("long term abuse") sit, quaeso per Meta-Wiki nuntia, vel si complicatum est, mihi nuntium in spatio meo disputationis relinquere potes. Spero te posse collaborare et nos in hoc casu complexo adiuvare. Taichi (disputatio) 20:39, 18 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- @Taichi: Gratias tibi ago ob hanc relationem. Monitum de dubia gravitate huic paginae addidi, sed alios infestos eventūs ignoro, itaque disputationem in MetaVici incipere non possum. Possisne tu, quaeso, has notitias etiam illic ferre?
- Thank you for this report. I added a warning about dubious notability to this page, but I am unaware about other problematic events, therefore I cannot start a Meta-Wiki discussion. Would you mind bringing these news there too?
- --Grufo (disputatio) 21:55, 18 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- @Grufo: Thank you for the quickly response, about the user's case exists in Meta-Wiki: meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for user Marrovi 2. The LTA case has been going on for over 10 years on Spanish Wikipedia, but in the last years it began to spread in another Wikipedias, and it was blocked globally in 2020, after the Meta-Wiki case. Shortly after, it announced it had published some books, which has restarted its promotional behavior using socks, IPv6 directions and now temporal accounts (see history). Taichi (disputatio) 22:38, 18 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping an eye on this case. What can we do here besides checking page notability? Blocking anonymous users can always be only temporary. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:47, 18 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- @Grufo: Thank you for the quickly response, about the user's case exists in Meta-Wiki: meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for user Marrovi 2. The LTA case has been going on for over 10 years on Spanish Wikipedia, but in the last years it began to spread in another Wikipedias, and it was blocked globally in 2020, after the Meta-Wiki case. Shortly after, it announced it had published some books, which has restarted its promotional behavior using socks, IPv6 directions and now temporal accounts (see history). Taichi (disputatio) 22:38, 18 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
The author's story reads like a Wikipedia novel. I don't consider him a bad person because I don't know him, but his current work is quite interesting for understanding Latin America. New authors are emerging in our Motherland, and we can't ignore new literary contributions. Perhaps at this time, his biography will be deleted, but in the near future, it will be necessary to reopen it; since we're not talking about a user, we're talking about a new-generation writer.
It's better to remove what's considered inappropriate and let the article about this new figure continue to grow. It's better to focus on the encyclopedic aspect, not on hatred of a controversial figure. If we delete it out of hatred or to justify what's right, Wikipedia will lose credibility as a free encyclopedia, and we would become a privately controlled encyclopedia.--Ritiqusqu (disputatio) 19:18, 19 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
Quid sit faciendum?
I don't know what we should do about this page. We can assume that the anonymous users who created this page (and Los frutos de Tierra Santa – see also this talk page's history) are indeed Marrovi (contributions), and we can also easily assume that “Marrovi” stands for “Manuel Rodríguez Villegas” (also same birth year in their user page, 1982), but Wikipedia does not forbid involved users to write about what they are involved in, the only requirement is the encyclopedicity of things. So what about this and the other entry? Should they be deleted? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:32, 21 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- To say that what Marrovi wrote did should be deleted is childish and sounds like a sign of disrespect. I think it's better to write articles as encyclopedic rather than deleting them; there's no point in deleting them and then recreating them. But if an article isn't encyclopedic, then it should be deleted. Pachuca is a city that isn't Marrovi's property; I don't see the reason to delete it, as well as other articles in which he participated.
- Ritiqusqu (disputatio) 02:35, 22 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- When I added a warning that this page might not be of encyclopedic interest, I knew nothing about Marrovi and their possible cross-wiki spam; I simply typed “Manuel Rodríguez Villegas” on Google, but not much came out. Usually when our Latin Vicipaedia appears in the first page of the search results it is a bad sign. I don't have strong opinions about this particular case, and it's possible that arguments could be made in both directions. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:13, 22 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- Postilla. I see now that there have been vandalic edits on the page that prevented us from seeing Taichi's warnings earlier. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:35, 22 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- After reading, I see that if there's a reason for deletion, it's because the author himself promoted it. But I don't see any reason to suggest that the person is a criminal or the devil himself. That's a personal opinion that tends to make us think the worst about Manuel.
- In my personal opinion, Marrovi is a great person. He went from a user who played with Wikipedia to a writer. That's a congratulatory mention. He has the South American spirit. He sought his place in the world no matter what it costs him. But I don't think Wikipedia is for him. He deserves better for being persistent.--Ritiqusqu (disputatio) 06:18, 22 Octobris 2025 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden to be involved in the subject of a Wikipedia article. On English Wikipedia they have {{en:Connected contributor}} that can be optionally added to the talk page in similar cases (and that's it). Here
we don't even have thatnow we do. The problem in this case however is that Marrovi is globally blocked, which should make it impossible for them to write an autobiographic page. But even if we give the anonymous page creators the benefit of the doubt about them not being Marrovi, the biggest problem I see here is the lack of notability of the subject. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:33, 22 Octobris 2025 (UTC)- @Grufo: FYI, the entries in other languages have been removed; only this one remains. I understand there are internal issues within this community, but considering that the subject of this biography has been directly involved in the entry and amidst heated controversy, it is preferable that his notoriety (if any) be described separately from his influence, even on this Wikipedia. Taichi (disputatio) 04:53, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Taichi. We don't have many issues on Latin Wikipedia :-) If it is true that this page is used primarily for self-promotion, I am also in favour of removing it. But we also have Los frutos de Tierra Santa (see also simple:The fruit of Holy Land), and so maybe we should decide about both pages at the same time. I would also like to hear what others have to say about this. Because other users have edited the page and a discussion was born, we would need at least a few more non-involved participants to take a decision. --Grufo (disputatio) 05:45, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- Ab amicis Vicipaedianis peto ut hoc legant et recenseant. ― Grufo (disputatio) 05:45, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)Hi Vicipaediani Vicipaedianaeque vocati sunt:
Andrew Dalby, Bis-Taurinus, Demetrius Talpa, IacobusAmor, Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus, Neander et Utilo
Andrew Dalby, Demetrius Talpa, IacobusAmor et Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus prima hebdomada ab hac petitione divulgata paginam recensuerunt. Ob alacritatem gratias eis agimus.- I don't have an opinion here, except to wonder whether the patronymic should be written as such (for example, Abel Ioannis filius Tasman from Dutch and Moyses Eliae filius Kirpičnikov from Russian), so in the lemma, Rodríguez might be Roderici Filius. For a Spanish precedent, see Didacus Roderici Filius (comes Castellae). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:45, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, today Rodriguez is a surname (in this case, one of two), and not a patronymic (although by origin, like many surnames, it is a patronymic). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:02, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- Both should be removed; there is no need to keep articles deleted in other sections — this would set a precedent for using the Latin section as a repository for unwanted material. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:59, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- Greetings to all! I came here because I received a message about this discussion, see above. I think this article is self-promotion, and the article about Los frutos de Tierra Santa is also self-promotion. For articles connected with living people we should have at least 2 cited sources, both independent of the subject, both showing that the subject is notable (not just booklists or CVs, for example, but serious reviews or author profiles by different authors). In this case (please correct me if I'm mistaken) one footnote leads to an interview with the author, which is behind a paywall, so we cannot read it. There are many other footnotes but they all seem to lead to copies of the subject's own books. Therefore I support deletion of the articles.
- Demetrius is right: "Rodriguez" and comparable forms are not patronymics in 21st century Spanish. They are surnames and so we would retain them unchanged. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion here, except to wonder whether the patronymic should be written as such (for example, Abel Ioannis filius Tasman from Dutch and Moyses Eliae filius Kirpičnikov from Russian), so in the lemma, Rodríguez might be Roderici Filius. For a Spanish precedent, see Didacus Roderici Filius (comes Castellae). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:45, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- @Grufo: FYI, the entries in other languages have been removed; only this one remains. I understand there are internal issues within this community, but considering that the subject of this biography has been directly involved in the entry and amidst heated controversy, it is preferable that his notoriety (if any) be described separately from his influence, even on this Wikipedia. Taichi (disputatio) 04:53, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden to be involved in the subject of a Wikipedia article. On English Wikipedia they have {{en:Connected contributor}} that can be optionally added to the talk page in similar cases (and that's it). Here
Nescio equidem: fortasse non multo aliter atque Demetrius et Andreas sentio. Suspecta quidem est disputatio ad saec. 21 pertinens quae nusquam nisi in Latina Vicipaedia reperitur nec ad Latinistas et Latinam linguam spectat. --Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:51, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)
Conclusio. Gratias vobis ago ob prompta responsa. Ut videtur, hanc paginam (unā cum Los frutos de Tierra Santa) deleturi sumus. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:32, 1 Novembris 2025 (UTC)