Revision as of 03:55, 16 July 2008

Reverted Geography in Mexico edits

Your changes to the Geography section have been reverted. While you indeed provide sources for your claims, this issue has been extensively discussed, an poll was opened, after which it was 'consensually agreed to simply state that Mexico is in North America in the introductory paragraph, and then be as detailed and specific by providing all altenrative definitions of MA, CA and NA in the Geography section (by providing all we achieve WP:NPOV, by selecting only one, even if referenced and common, the section becomes WP:POV).

Also, please note that the page was fully protected (to all users) for over 10 days because of an edit war between Alex, Supaman and Corticopia; these users temporarily blocked for engagin in WP:3RR on that occassion. Administrators unprotected the page becase we had reached a civilized consensus, which you can read at Talk:Mexico. If you disagree with the consensus, you are entitled to reopen the discussion, but do not edit the conensual version until it has been agreed to do so. If you edit without discussing, you might re-start an edit-war, the page will be fully protected again, and the article will, nonetheless, be restored to the previous consensus until a new consensus is reached (if it is reached), hindering the improvement of the article in other non-controversial areas.

Thank you for your cooperation, --theDúnadan 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

North America (continent)=

Hi Jcmenal, since I see that no one discussed in the North America's article talk page, I think I should tell you what are my changes, tell me if you are well with these ones, if you don't like the changes, tell me why;

My proposed changes to the page are currently adding a hatnote notifying people how the article refers to North America, as there are several ways of reffering to it. Also, I wanted to place a reference that will guide readers to the rest of the largest cities that are beneath the 10th largest. I think we should place it along with the reference to the ten largest cities as reference number two. I also think we should forget about the subregions since the matter is complicated and we may take some days to address the situation.

Cocoliras (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, would you like telling me why is adding a reference to the 100 largest cities in North America beyond the largest 10 cities in the article a problem to you?

Cocoliras (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

North America (Americas)

Hello JC. Corticopia nominó para borrado el artículo recién creado de North America como una región argumentando que representa un punto de vista parcial. Continúa diciendo que debería simplemente ser agregado al ya existente artículo de North America (continente). ¿Podrías por favor votar? puesto que es una votación para saber si se queda o si es borrado. North America (Americas). AlexCovarrubias 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

North America (Americas) delete review

Thanks for voting and expressing your opinion about the article North America (Americas). As you know the debate was closed, and the result was "to delete it". Since I, as the creator of the article, thought the decision was hasty and wrong, I opened a to review the deletion.

This mean that administrators and regular editors can vote again and, most importantly, argument why the decision was wrong or right. Please, take a look at this and express your opinion:

• North America (Americas), deletion review

Thanks for your time reading this message. AlexCovarrubias 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

North America

The - uh - page you linked to in your edit summary does not - uh - exist. This may weaken your argument. WilyD 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've explained on Talk:North America#Norteamérica -- subcontinente? why I've removed that small reference about the English speaking world. It's perfectly reasonable to note that this usage is common in Latin America, but it's just not used by English language reliable sources. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Punta Colonet, Baja California

I'm glad you noticed the page and made a few editorial changes. I still plan on expanding the labor section, but the rest is pretty much done now. I think it would be a great addition to the to translate this page. Kgrr 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

States of Mexico

I have seen some maps list the northern portion of the Baja peninsula as Baja California and others refer to it as Baja California Norte. Is there an official mexican state map online from the Mexican government that clears this up for those of us writing articles which refer to Mexico? Thegreatdr 18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Baja California Norte

Hi Jcmenal! While I appreciate your efforts to improve the accuracy of certain rattlesnake articles my making sure that they refer to valid names of Mexican states, I don't see that there's anything wrong with mentioning or linking to "Baja California Norte." First of all, I'm just being faithful to the sources that I cite from, and second, the redirect (if used) always takes readers to the right place: the state of Baja California." In addition, the type localities mentioned in the articles are almost always from the original description of the animal and cannot be changed (even if they're completely wrong). (PS -- If you'd like to respond, you can do so here, as I've temporarily got your talk page on my watch list.) --Jwinius 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jwinius!. Well, I changed more than 100 articles related with "Baja California", not just rattlesnake articles. Sadly as I said to another user, the usage of Baja California Norte is so extended, even by many mexicans (a few bajacalifornians included). If you google "Baja California Norte" you will find houndreds of related links, but this doesnt make it right. Misplaced Pages could be the best site to find the correct information about Baja California. --JC 14:05, 22 July 2007 (PST)

I'm glad that you think Misplaced Pages is a good place to find correct information about Baja California, but as the article states, Norte is sometimes used to help distinguish the state from the rest of the peninsula. That's why my books use Norte, so it's no typo. Like so many before me, when I discovered that the peninsula was divided into two states, I found their names confusing as well, so I can understand why the authors wrote the books the way they did. Once again, my only wish to quote the original text accurately, and I even linked to the correct article name, so I'd be grateful to you if you could please leave the text the way I had it. --Jwinius 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Now why do you think I would be under the mistaken impression that you're on an irrational crusade to wipe out all mentionings of Baja California Norte at Misplaced Pages, except (perhaps) for the one in the Baja California article itself? It shouldn't be illegal for us to use the term -- or even "Baja California (Norte)" -- if all we want is to make sure readers don't think we're referring to the entire peninsula; there's even a redirect for it that takes you to the correct article. --Jwinius 08:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be your impression, I'm trying to fix the Misplaced Pages mentions of my home state. The use of the term is not illegal, just incorrect, the use of "Baja California (Norte)" is a clear reference to the state's wrong name, I'm not agaisnt about the use of "Baja California (state/estado)". BTW the use of "Baja California Norte" in the Mexican Tax system is not legal. We have three places named Baja California: 1)Baja California peninsula, 2)Baja California (state), 3)Baja California Sur, confusing? yes/maybe, but they are their right names. I found this situation similiar to the name of the US states of Virginia and West Virginia. --JC 09:10, 25 July 2007 (PST)

Face it: the name of your state is confusing, since it can mean either Baja California (state) or Beja California (peninsula). "Norte" simply helps us geographically-challenged, non-Mexicans to distinguish between the two; what's wrong with that? I'd say a better comparison would be New York, which may refer to either the state or the city. In that case, the solution is to use New York State and New York City, both of which are in heavy use. Wouldn't it be confusing if either one were to be declared officially incorrect? It's no wonder that the use of "Norte" persists. Anyway, I suppose this isn't going to convince you. How about if we compromise and you allow me to say "Baja California (state)" instead? --Jwinius 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You think so?, mmm could be, we always use "la peninsula" to reffer to the whole Baja California peninsula. I found more confusing the term Mexico, because we have a country, a state and a city sharing the same name. Hehe, I allow you to say "Baja California (state)", is the most accurate term =) --JC 21:30, 25 July 2007 (PST)

Okay, thanks! I've adjusted things now. It's been an interesting discussion. --Jwinius 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

List of men's national football (soccer) teams

Hey. Apologies for that mess-up over the Falkland Islands. My complaint is that which is summed up here - that though the Falkland Islands team obviously exists, it doesn't exist on the same level as other, truly national, teams. I recognise, for instance, that FIOGA recognises the Falklands team as their representative squad, but for instance, I believe it is still the case (as until very recently it also was in the Olympics) that football teams in the Commonwealth Games, and wherever else FIOGA represents the Falklands at, must be amateur sides, not professional. And yes, this isn't a list of Football Associations, but if you read that Talk page, it's become common consensus that a fully operational Football Association (and not a regional one either, except in rare exceptions) is necessary to prove that a team belongs on this list.

If you read that Talk page, you'll see that I initially shared your own views, and I want to support you, but the truth is that it is a page for national teams, and so we can't stick any old team there, if it doesn't truly belong there. I'm not the best at explaining this, you'd do better speaking with KevinMcE - he's involved in the talk on the Talk page, and essentially set the guidelines for which teams count and which don't. He would best be able to tell you why we made our decisions, and whether your choices are in line with policy. Falastur2 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: 3RR

You do realise that, with each of your template retrofits today, you have made 4 reverts. You also failed to use the talk page to discuss your edits. If you do not willingly revert to the prior template (which, in effect, is the consensual one), I will report you for edit warring. Corticopia 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Senseless; after all, I created the template not too long ago. Corticopia 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'Ownership' is not the point: editing without any discussion and consensus is. And, labelling your edit upfront as 'cleanup' doesn't help your case. And in English it's properly 'Middle America', not 'middle America'. Corticopia 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You effectively reverted an alphabetised version to a stratified, skewed one repeatedly based on your criteria alone. Corticopia 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're trying to prove. The constituents of Middle America are not in dispute, but your framing and boosterism in the template is. You continue to place and consider Mexico a region all on its own, previously including it in the elusive 'North America (region)', when it can be placed in any number of regions. For current purposes, an alphanbetical arrangement is sufficient.

Until compelled otherwise, I will continue to restore the status quo ... which is as it was when I completed the template. Corticopia 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You will continue to be reverted. Corticopia (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that you reverted Middle America (Americas) three times and are at risk of violating 3RR. If you breach it, you will be reported. Corticopia (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, yours a revert to a prior version in January. Anyhow, I tire of arguing with a child. Corticopia (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody reported you

JC, Corticopia reported you for violating the 3RR. However, you haven't received a block before and that might help you, also Corticopia lied in the report, because you didn't revert 4 times as he alleges. I will correct that in the report, but you need to speak up for yourself. AlexCovarrubias 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

JC, I ended up not correcting his report. I think it is better if the admins. note that by themselves. I, however, added a comment about his false report. If you want to speak with me more directly, you can find me online in MSN, I think you have my e-mail. AlexCovarrubias 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is the page where you can reply . AlexCovarrubias 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about the direction of Mexican highways

I'm curious about this edit. I had used a consistent south-north and west-east order. I assume you're referring to the direction that the kilometer posts increase; is this consistent on all highways? In other words, if I take Highway 190 from Mexico City to Guatemala, will the posts always be going in the same direction, even when they reset at cities? --NE2 10:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

North America userbox

Hola Juan Carlos!-- S'olo para comentar que met'i mano a tu caja de usuario porque a~nade un espacio espurio sobre la caja, que desalinea del resto de las cajas (mira mi userpage para que lo confirmes). Con la correcci'on que hab'ia hecho ese espacio espurio desaparece. Hay otras formas de a~nadir las instrucciones. Espero que te satisfaga.-- Env'io esta nota antes de llegar a las tres reediciones reglamentarias.-- Louie (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't get rid of the spurious space... you may consider deleting the instrucions above: few userboxes use it, and they usually make havoc among non-experienced (or even seasoned) users. Louie (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Saludos

Hola JC, no he podido estar en Misplaced Pages tanto como desearía pero paso a saludarte y a decirte que aquí andamos en la "lucha" por una mejor enciclopedia sin prejuicios ni cosas que ambos sabemos. Gracias por todo y que tengas un excelente día. AlexC. 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring

Look, I noticed your edits at Northern America (disambiguation) and at Geography of Mexico are edit warring which are a violation of blocking policy (note: you can be disruptive even you are reverting just once a day). Stop that right now and I'd suggest you two discuss it on the talk page. Also, in case you think I'm playing favorites, I've also warned User:Corticopia as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We

We, porfavor metete a la discusion de geografia de mexico y comenta algo al respecto, ya me tienen hasta la madre estos tipos, a y si tienes tiempo podrias meterte aca tambien y apoyarme para que los articulos de Mexico incluyan en estado junto con la ciudad asi como cualquier ciudad de EUA, he tradado de cambiar la norma hacia mexico pero estos hjp no me dejan hacerlo, ya no tienen nada que decir pero cada evz que quiero editar finalmente el articulo salen con la mamada de "con hay concenso" espero tus comentarios, camara nos vemos. Supaman89 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii

Please join in the discussion at Talk:Ages of consent in North America. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is Mexico?

Hello Jcmenal:

I see your edit to Mexico:geography and your edit note that the change was agreed by majority. Please let me know where I can find the discussion or vote that you are referring to.

Gracias, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

- - - -

Thanks for the information. You have been working on the Mexico article much longer than I have. I thought in the fall that the "disagreements" between Alex C., Corticopia, and one or two other editors made it impossible to reach agreement about the sentence about the location of Mexico, so I gave up on that. Buena suerte! Wanderer57 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Independencia

Hola Jcmenal me gustaría contactar con gente interesada en la independencia hispanoamericana. ¿Conoces más gente interesada?.¿Hay algún grupo de trabajo?. Por otro lado me he dado cuenta que deseas retirar el mapa animado, que he hecho yo mismo. Yo creo que es historicamente correcto incluir México, ¿tú deseas excluirlo?, ¿es por el título del artículo?, ¿crees que hay que cambiar South American wars of independence por Hispanoamerican wars of independence?. Yo apoyaría un cambio de nombre si de eso se trata, pero me gustaria conocer en realidad cuál es tu objeción.Un saludo cordial. Si crees que hay algo que mejorar del mapa por favor contacta conmigo.--Resvoluci (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Yo estoy de acuerdo contigo, no tiene mucho que ver la situación geografica, Florida y Texas también formaban parte de la Monarquía española, y lo mismo que México tampoco forman parte de América del Sur. Pero, ¿con quién, qué usuario digo, habría que dialogar para proponer un traslado de nombre?. Por otro lado ¿tienes alguna preferencia para "Hispanoamerican" versus ¿Hispanic American?, yo prefiero el primero por ser mas corto, pero ¿tiene algún significado distinto en el mundo anglosajon?, ¿quizá no es linguisticamente correcto?. Mira, te paso el título del primer libro historiografico existente sobre la independencia hispanoamericana, mira su título y saca tus propias conclusiones, fue escrito en el año 1830 para ilustrar a Fernando VII sobre los hechos ocurridos en América, y puedes leerlo en Google books Un Saludo.--Resvoluci (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo

Hello JC I sent you an email but you haven't replied yet. So here I am just to inform you that I'm fully back and that I hope that we can continue to improve the articles. Please keep me updated about your recent projects so I can give you a hand. What about the document you discovered about the Declaration of Independence of Northern America (Mexico)? Cya AlexC. 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

History of North America

Hi Jcmenal,

I don't understand why you reverted my re-wording. To me, it seems that the relevant information is where the settlements were located (i.e. modern-day Mexico and Florida,) rather than what the Spanish called the whole territory. Your current version lacks clarity, and I think it should be reverted. Please reply here so we can keep the discussion in one place. --Confiteordeo (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, well the Spaniards called such region as Northern America, and that is a historic name, it was Mexico's first official name as an independent nation, while your edits does not include the Spanish settlements in the former Mexican territory and "Northern America"/"colonial Mexico" does. Probably this name should be in another section. Cheers. JC 23:55, 22 Feb 2008 (PST)

Thanks for getting back to me. I have a few questions about the accuracy of your edits, though. Weren't the only successful colonies in Spanish territory north of Mexico and outside of Florida established in the late seventeenth century (in the 1690s or so?) In that case, it would indeed be better to talk only about the settlements in modern-day Mexico and Florida because those predate the other settlements talked about in the section (Jamestown, Plymouth Colony, and Canada.) Implying that there were Spanish settlements (and not just explorations) outside of Mexico and Florida isn't accurate. Another question- wasn't the area referred to as New Spain after 1535? Do you have a source that shows that "Northern America" was used before that? Mexico became independent long, long after the period in question, so the fact that it called itself "Northern America" is irrelevant. Because of these reasons, I think that the current version is too vague. Please reply here so we can keep the discussion in one place.--Confiteordeo (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxican Spanish

Could you please write a stub about Kurów in Mexican here – just a few sentences based on http://kurow-wiki.openhosting.pl/es:Kurów ? Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already in 276 languages and dialects. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests and this article have the biggest number of interwikis) Pietras1988 12:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

History of the west coast of North America

Oye, amigo - ¿por qué es nosotros no vamos a utilizar el nombre moderno de México en el subtitulo de este artículo? Why are we not using the modern name of Mexico in the subtitle of this article? Using an old name is confusing to modern readers. If you want, we can include a footnote that at the time of independence, the Declaration of Independence was for "Northern America," and not for "Mexico." Pero, uso hoy de ese nombre antiguo y anacrónico no es indicado en Misplaced Pages. Use today of this antique and anachronistic name is not really the way we do it in Misplaced Pages. If you wish to make a point about the text of Declaration of Independence, let's please do it in a footnote (or in text), not in a way that is confusing to modern readers. Please reply on the talk page of that article. NorCalHistory (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

UnderstandMexico

Would you please provide an explanation as to why you reverted the external link to the Baja California page of UnderstandMexico? If you can find a more suitable replacement for investment data, perhaps from Bancomext, Sedeco, Detac or Copreen I welcome you to replace it, but as to my very informed knowledge no such information exists on the Internet I request you restore the link to the Baja California investment guide on UnderstandMexico. Aburda (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello JC, thanks for you comments, in reply - you are correct the investinbaja.com site is quiet good (the sedeco folks for Baja are probably the best in Mexico). Bancomext (http://www.mexico-trade.com/) is the federal site and it is generally awful. A few of the other states have investment portals but in general there is limited information, what information is available is usually in flash or barely search engine readable. Maquilaportal.com is another example of an attempt at creating a portal.

My goal is to slowly gather information on each state and city and create a useful investment guide and set the whole system up so that companies can easily add and update their profiles. In regards to Misplaced Pages, I know investors end up on wikipedia when they are trying to find out information about where to invest, so as an investment guide reaches the point where it has enough info for it to be useful, I'll add an external link to that particular city or state's wikipedia article. You can access all of the guides using the map on the front page.

On an aside, where are you at in Baja, you don't happen to be in Ensenada? Aburda (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mesoamerica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JD554 (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Declarations of independence

Hi Jcmenal. I saw you undid my edits of the Declarations of independence page. I stated my reasons in the talk of the page, I'm looking forward to your reaction. Joost 99 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF WC Qualification

Hey man,

I just wanted to let you know that I'm assuming good faith on your edits to the various CONCACAF WCQ articles.

I appreciate you trying to improve the page, but if you look at the FIFA website you'll see that the groups are consistent throughout qualification.

One of the things it helps show is that no matter what happens Mexico, Honduras, and Canada could never qualify for the WC together because only the top 2 teams from their group will go on to the final group.

The draw was set up so that they would only have to do one, so they made the paths to the WC clear for everyone from the very beginning.

I appreciate what you were trying to do and look forward to working with you on the article in the future. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN/I

This report concerns you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Northern America (disambiguation). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

Following this warning you continued to revert another user. You've been warned several times, but continue to use reversion in place of discussion. There is no "right" to three reverts, and to run right up to the line is still disruption. In particular, engaging in reversion with no edit summary is unnacceptable. All blocks are subject to discussion, of course. - brenneman 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)