Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 6 November 2007

Salutations

lol, Corti were you threatening me that comment in Middle America? anyways, so... what are you working on right now? Do you have any other interests besides you know what? Hombre tranquilo te va a dar un ataque con tanto coraje metido, por que no te tomas unos dias de descanso? te hara bien.Supaman89 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: 3RR

No sir, until now You and me, we have made 3 reverts each. I edited in good faith, my last edition has no conflict with the middle America definition. We both failed to use the talk page to discuss the edits. If you do not willingly revert to the prior template, I will also report you for edit warring. JC 09:45, 27 September 2007 (PST)

You can create a Template, but this doesnt make You the Template's owner. As I said, my last edition has no conflicts with the middle America definition. JC 09:55, 27 September 2007 (PST)

My first editions wasnt a revert and you know that, since then, our editions were made without any discussion and consensus. The current edition has no conflicts with the region definition. JC 11:00, 27 September 2007 (PST)

No sir, You made the first revert to an edit, an edit that is clearly been accepted by all (even by you) or will you denied that Middle America is composed by Mexico, Central America and the West Indies? The current edit shows were exactly are the nations by region (inside Middle America of course). JC 12:05, 27 September 2007 (PST)

Geography of Mexico

You are gaming the system by applying rules or procedures just when you consider they fit your agenda. Your reason not to honor the consensus in the talk page Mexico is a shame. You revert the changes in Geography of Mexico saying that the changes were not agreed in that article talk page . Well, following your argument I also added back the previous version, the one that was in the article before we "agreed" in the talk page Mexico (not in Geography of Mexico of course) the first time, months ago.

When you changed the article Geography of Mexico based in our first agreements in the article Mexico, nobody said anything, as it was seen as a natural step to follow. Now you fail to honor the same method after the second agreement just because you don't like the resolution, so, as I already said, I have added back the original version based in your own argument: not agreed in that talk page. AlexC. 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Metropolis, you and Alex

Hi Corticopia. I have no preference one way or another about this geographic categorization matter so I think I'm fairly unbiased about the correctness of various parties. I think a lot of parties in this have some culpability in why it seems so acrimonious a discussion. I've already counseled Alex to focus on working constructively to resolve issues, and while I'm not sure the comment from him directly above is in that spirit, I do think he's trying, at least some of the time. I would really appreciate it if you also would try to work with him as well as with others, and not cast aspersions or bring up the sock puppet thing over and over. Leave bygones be bygones if you can. As I say, no one's perfect and you do try some of the time, but if you can try it will help. Thanks. I'll watch here for a reply if needed. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Corticopia 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

no problem. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OK -- see here. Corticopia 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus changes

I'm not certain I agree with your changes. "Eurasian" isn't a clearer term, and is no more necessary than the other details you have deleted. Using your argument, one may also delete reference to the Mediterranean and certainly to Turkey, as well as the wording about being the third largest Mediterranean island in the next paragraph. All that is elsewhere -- buried fairly deep in the article. So I looked at how other similar articles are written and patterned something similar for Cyprus. And, tying the three references (this lead, the geography section, and the separate geography article) together supports using clearer language about the Middle Eastern (or Asian) location, with only cultural/political/etc. links to Europe. Finally, the word "Eurasian" was deleted some time ago with little objection from numerous editors, so why the need for the change? Given this, I would appreciate discussion about why my thoughts were/are so incorrect. Thanks, Saraalan 03:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just one point - restoring Turkey as the only geo reference point for Cyprus is, unintentionally, an unfortunate political move. Can we not all keep to "eastern Mediterranean"? Vizjim 05:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is a truism. This did exist previously for some time without barely a peep. In fact, its omission as such (and hence no other link to Turkey in the introduction as a result) seems just as 'political'. Corticopia 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a link to Turkey just below, which I have now restored. There is no link to Greece in the introduction, despite the strong cultural and economic ties between the countries. The paragraph concerned, along with the map, gives the position without the necessity to bring in regional players who, in your rather unfortunate words, make certain claims over mritime rights and so forth. Vizjim 10:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse: the 'Republic of Turkey' is rather ostentatious; should we also refer to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'? There are links to those things which are 'Greek,' but a link to 'Greece 'is also warranted and so I've placed a link to that article as well. Besides, I believe this was in place beforehand, but it is curious how things such as this get morphed with time. Corticopia 11:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)