Loading AI tools
How can you say that the List of countries by GDP (PPP) hasn't been updated? Both the IMF World Report 2007 (link on the wiki article) and the aforementioned articles clearly state that Brazil is the world's 8th largest economy.
- The addition of "which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" is editorializing, which does violate the NPOV policy. If you wish to debate the article's language, please do so on the talk page before making major changes to the content. Also, do not change other users' comments on talk pages, like you did with this edit. That is considered vandalism. Thank you. --Confiteordeo 11:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussions at talk:use of the word American, talk:continent, and talk:America, you will see that there are many different opinions on the subject, but there are no hard facts. The statement "cuz most americans are close-minded just like you" is a personal attack, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please do not make statements like that about other users; you will be blocked from editing. Also, for your information, I'm not American- I'm French. --Confiteordeo 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Colloquially" is more appropriate because many British, Canadians, and Australians (actually, any anglophone) may also use the term "America" to refer to the United States, and those countries are hardly local. The same is true in French, although "Amérique" is much less frequently used that way than in English. The problem with "which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" is two-fold: the main problem is that it doesn't add any valuable information to the sentence, while being polemical. Also, although I haven't exhaustively read through the talk pages that I provided above, I believe there's been difficulty in definitively proving that the Americas are considered to be one continent in most places around the world. Since the lack of a black-and-white definition makes such changes highly controversial, it's better to discuss them on the article's talk page before arbitrarily making them. --Confiteordeo 23:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are many Canadians and Australians who call the United States "America." Ask WilyD. Even if you don't believe that, the fact that the British use "America" in that way proves that it is not only a local term. If it is not only a local term, it's false to say that it is. The reason that "which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" does not belong in the article is because it does not add useful information to the paragraph and is not relevant given the surrounding context. Whether or not the Americas are taught to be one continent or two has nothing to do with the fact that the first use of the word "America" was on a map by Martin Waldseemüller in 1577, so why do you need to add it? It's like saying "the first cat was domesticated ten thousand years ago in Egypt, and the oxyphosphetane forms via a concerted [2+2] addition process." --Confiteordeo 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- "And America by most English-speaking countries" is more accurate, but it implies that the United States is most commonly called America in those countries, which I don't know to be true. Colloquially is a better choice because it doesn't say anything about the frequency of its everyday usage.
- There are many Canadians and Australians who call the United States "America." Ask WilyD. Even if you don't believe that, the fact that the British use "America" in that way proves that it is not only a local term. If it is not only a local term, it's false to say that it is. The reason that "which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" does not belong in the article is because it does not add useful information to the paragraph and is not relevant given the surrounding context. Whether or not the Americas are taught to be one continent or two has nothing to do with the fact that the first use of the word "America" was on a map by Martin Waldseemüller in 1577, so why do you need to add it? It's like saying "the first cat was domesticated ten thousand years ago in Egypt, and the oxyphosphetane forms via a concerted [2+2] addition process." --Confiteordeo 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Colloquially" is more appropriate because many British, Canadians, and Australians (actually, any anglophone) may also use the term "America" to refer to the United States, and those countries are hardly local. The same is true in French, although "Amérique" is much less frequently used that way than in English. The problem with "which is the way it's taught in most countries around the world" is two-fold: the main problem is that it doesn't add any valuable information to the sentence, while being polemical. Also, although I haven't exhaustively read through the talk pages that I provided above, I believe there's been difficulty in definitively proving that the Americas are considered to be one continent in most places around the world. Since the lack of a black-and-white definition makes such changes highly controversial, it's better to discuss them on the article's talk page before arbitrarily making them. --Confiteordeo 23:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussions at talk:use of the word American, talk:continent, and talk:America, you will see that there are many different opinions on the subject, but there are no hard facts. The statement "cuz most americans are close-minded just like you" is a personal attack, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please do not make statements like that about other users; you will be blocked from editing. Also, for your information, I'm not American- I'm French. --Confiteordeo 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- As for the sentence about the map, I don't think it implies anything about the evolution of the name, but maybe that's because I'm a native English speaker. Would it be clearer to say "The first use of the word America is attributed to the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller who, while working in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges in 1507, created a globe and a large map showing North and South America?" --Confiteordeo 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think of the rewrite I suggested above? --Confiteordeo 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I suggested a rewritten version of that sentence and asked you what you thought of it. --Confiteordeo 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I took a look at the Waldseemüller map, and it may interest you to know that Waldseemüller labeled North America as "terra incognita" and South America as "America." Since the two land masses aren't connected on the map, it wouldn't be accurate to say that he "described North and South America as just one continent." In light of that, can you suggest a better wording for the sentence in question? --Confiteordeo 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I suggested a rewritten version of that sentence and asked you what you thought of it. --Confiteordeo 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think of the rewrite I suggested above? --Confiteordeo 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) No, those maps are the German maps being described in the sentence that you want to change. You can't say that Waldseemüller "described North and South America as just one continent" because he didn't. --Confiteordeo 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, that's irrelevant to the section and more appropriate for the Use of the word American article (where I believe it's exhaustively discussed,) but if you think it needs mentioned in the United States article, I'd start a discussion on the talk page about the best way to include it in the article. Good luck, and best regards, --Confiteordeo 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been busy the past couple of days. First of all, please be careful not to say things like "most americans are close-minded;" statements like that make people mad and less willing to work with you. Also, it's not true that Americans are deliberately "try[ing] to take over the name of the whole continent [sic]" because that usage has been passed down to them and is part of the language. Whether or not it's "fair" is irrelevant to the paragraph because fairness is a matter of opinion.
- Now, the article already says, "The most common adjectival and demonymic form for the United States is American, although this term can also refer to inhabitants of either North or South America," which I think could be expanded. Because there are concerns about the length of the article, it might be preferable to put See also: Use of the word American (or whatever article you think best explains the naming problem) underneath that section, since that would keep the space used to a minimum, and is unlikely to be controversial. If you want to add anything more, I'd start a discussion on the talk page with your proposal, but keep in mind that whatever you add should be immediately relevant to the section, and will be challenged if it's viewed as controversial. However, if you have good reasoning and verifiable sources to back you up, you should have a much easier time. I've been working on a series of other articles lately, so I don't really have the time to participate in your proposal, but if the discussion stalls and you want my opinion on the talk page, feel free to ask! --Confiteordeo 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hola Supaman:
Entiendo tu coraje y frustración con respecto a quienes históricamente han tratado de denostar a México incluyéndolo en Centro América, olvidando las grandes diferencias políticas e históricas entre nuestro país y esta región del continente. El usuario Corticopia estoy seguro, es otro usuario con el que tuvimos que lidiar en el artículo de North America, pues estaba aferrado a incluir a México en Centro América. Él usó varias cuentas, incluso fue bloqueado debido a una investigación que yo inicié , para luego descubrir que ya tenía otros comprobados intentos de sockpuppetry . Él trata de decir que no es el mismo, pero cometió un gran error (ya lo ha hecho con otras cuentas). Sólo checa el primer edit de User:Corticopia y el primer edir de User:Ex post factoid y de User:E Pluribus Anthony. Como te puedes dar cuenta es muy obvio que tienen el mismo patrón de ediciones, lo cual es evidencia de sockpuppetry. Editan Canada, North America, Issac Asimov y varias cosas más en común.
Mi punto es que aunque estoy 100% seguro de que es la misma persona, él mismo decidió dejar de poner "southern" North America, si se retiraba que Guatemala y Belize están en Centro América. Creo que lo mejor es, por el momento, dejarlo así, pues todo mundo sabe que esos países son de Centro América, de la misma manera que la inmensa mayoría sabe que México está en Norte América. Luego se puede hacer algo al respecto. Creo que lo mejor por el momento es no provocar más guerra de ediciones con este usuario. Su historial de querer excluír a México de Norte América es muy obvio, como puedes leer en la Talk Page del artículo North America.
Confía en mi, lo mejor es dejar las cosas así. Si te das cuenta, hay varios usarios que se dicen mexicanos pero sus ediciones y conceptos los delatan. Creo que sería muy malo que ellos unieran fuerzas con Corticopia, pues no les importa mucho si alguien trata de denostar a México. Es más hasta creo que lo apoyarían. Saludos amigo. Déjame un mensaje para saber que leiste este. AlexCovarrubias 
( Let's talk! ) 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please note I can read Spanish -- say what you will. If you are conspiring, at least do so out of sight. :) Corticopia 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Soy Mexicano y amo a México. Precisamente por eso siento que merece un articulo de calidad. La verdad a veces duele, pero sirve, por que de ella aprendemos. La verdad es nuestro reto, nuestro destino, nuestro marco de referencia, nuestra herramienta y nuestra meta. Yo siento que el articulo de México debe ser lo más verdadero posible, apegado a la realidad como sea posible. De cuando aca decir la verdad es "tirar tierra"? Al final del día, lo que el articulo dice es la verdad: que el Webster dice que México está en el sur de Norte America. Si eso es lo que Corticopia quiere poner, y si eso es la verdad, y si, ademas, esas son las reglas de wikipedia, pues que lo ponga!!!! Ahora si, tu puedes obtener otras referencias, por supuesto que seran bienvenidas.
- No. No apoyo la edición de Corticopia por que sea él, ni mucho menos por que no me guste mi país. La apoyo por que las referencias aumentan la calidad del articulo, y México merece un articulo de la máxima calidad. Mi intención es que tu saques otras referencias aun mejores. Si lo haces, te apoyare 100%. Hari Seldon 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ahora... ¿qué tiene de malo Centro America que ser parte de él es algo "denostativo"? Hari Seldon 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's all cool now. Supaman89 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oye aki esta la imagen, nadamas grabala en tus documentos y luego la subes a Wikipedia en Espanol. Si no sabes como me abisas, de todos modos me abisas cuando ya la hayas subido ok.
- ¡Gracias!. Wikipedia en español solamente usa imágenes de Commons. Tengo cuenta ahí y creo que el mapa debe titularse America_del_Norte o America_del_Norte-Español para que quede clara la diferencia. Lo subo si estás de acuerdo con el nombre. Saludos. --(Ups, --Lin linao 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
- Todavía no colega, estos tengo poco acceso a internet y he estado en otras cosas. Si no fuera mucho pedir, ¿puedes corregirlo para que no aparezca verde lo que viene después del istmo de Tehuantepec? Geográficamente corresponde a América Central. Saludos. --Lin linao 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pues hay que quedarse con una definición y la común es que Yucatán, Chiapas y algún otro estado (perdón por la ignorancia) están en Centroamérica por un asunto geográfico, lo que no quita que México sea un país de América del Norte y no tiene nada que ver con los sentimientos de los habitantes. ¿Según tú la frontera geográfica coincide con la política? . Me recuerda una vez que se alegó que Isla de Pascua debería considerarse sudamericana por pertenecer a Chile. En este momento no puedo pasarte referencias, pero te las envío después. Saludos. Lin linao 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Todavía no colega, estos tengo poco acceso a internet y he estado en otras cosas. Si no fuera mucho pedir, ¿puedes corregirlo para que no aparezca verde lo que viene después del istmo de Tehuantepec? Geográficamente corresponde a América Central. Saludos. --Lin linao 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hola: Mira, creo que lo mejor por el momento es apoyar "su versión" pues el está tratando de que otro usuario (SqueakBox) remueva esa parte al argumentar que Mexico "a veces es considerado centro americano" lo cual ambos sabemos es falso. Ya le dejé un mensaje a Squeak porque seguro el no sabía lo que estaba pasando. Aquí hay que tratar de que el se vea como contradictorio pues el mismo propuso eso y ahora está tratando de que un tercero lo quite. Dejemoslo así, pues decir que Guatemala y Belice son naciones centroamericanas no tiene nada de malo y es cierto. Espero que captes lo que trato de decir. Por cierto, Corticopia está vigilando mi lista de contribuciones, para hostigar y escribir en cualquier otra parte que yo escriba, por lo cual te quiero pedir que si tienes MSN me agregues, es esealien @ hotmail.com. Saludos. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded, Image:Mariamexicovsarge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. theDúnadan 22:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect Supaman, this is not a game. We had agreed to a consensual introductory version that would only say "North America", but a detailed version that includes all possible definitions in the Geography sections. You agreed to that. You participated in the poll. Why are you reverting the consensual version you agreed to? Moreover, you can't say your "reversion" is NPOV because it only includes one definition (POV) and not all possible definitions. Your reversion is therefore POV.
If you had agreed to the consensual poll results, stick to your word. Show that you honor your own word. Now, if you changed your mind, that's OK, you are entitled to reopen the debate, however, you cannot change a consensual version until another consensual version is agreed (see: Wikipedia:consensus). If you revert a consensual version, your edits are considered vandalism. Moreover, the page will have to be fully protected again. --theDúnadan 18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, you must not have read the whole poll. We had agreed to be as precise as it can be. I don't understand your own paranoia thinking that we have an obsession to exclude Mexico from some sort of club of nations, when we cite geographical sources that you unilaterally dismiss based only you own conspiracy theory. Grow up, man. Mexico is North America, but also Middle America, and physiogeogrpahically, a section of it belongs to Central America. Why does it bother you so much to state the geological facts? Where do you get this conspiracy theory from? Do you believe you are being degraded if someone says that geographically Mexico is Middle America (a widely used term) or do you feel you are "superior" if they say Mexico will never be Central America but North America? --theDúnadan 05:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are telling me that I am offending a whole country? How old are you? Sigues con tu teoría de "exclusión". Si tienes tantas pruebas de que la frase Middle America fue creada para "excluirnos" a los mexicanos de un grupo de países "privilegiados" de cultura anglosajona, pues muéstralas. Mientras no lo hagas, es sólo tu opinión o punto de vista (POV=point of view), y claramente no es neutral (NPOV=neutral point of view), ya que la frase es geográfica.Yo también espero que disfrutes de la wikipedia y que participes y contribuyas para enriquecer los artículos de México, pero con un rigor un poco más maduro y académico. --theDúnadan 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ninoblanco.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bellasartes.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hola. Corticopia está tratando de borrar el artículo recién creado North America (Americas), que trata de la region/subcontinente tal y como lo enseñan en Latinoamérica y Europa. Por favor, entra y vota. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Would you please keep an eye on this? I don't think I'm coming back for a few days, I just received a terrible new and I feel devastated, I don't know when I am coming back. AlexCovarrubias
( Let's talk! ) 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I just arrived home from the funeral. I just came to take a shower and then I need to return. I feel very bad but I am more calmed than yesterday. I'm just fine I guess. Thanks a lot for your comments.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I just arrived home from the funeral. I just came to take a shower and then I need to return. I feel very bad but I am more calmed than yesterday. I'm just fine I guess. Thanks a lot for your comments.AlexCovarrubias
Hola. No lo creo. Es muy muy obvio que el administrador que cerró el debate tiene también algo en contra de reconocer que Norteamérica como región incluye hasta México. No creo que otros administradores no puedan darse cuenta de ello, por lo general, la mayoría son personas inteligentes. Esperemos que se revierta. De cualquier manera, no es la última opción. AlexCovarrubias
( Let's talk! ) 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Esperemos que no. Por lo menos una persona ya votó porque empiece de nuevo la discusión, es decir, relist. En realidad en Canada, la visión de que México es parte de Norteamérica está muy muy extendida. En Estados Unidos menos, pero de cualquier manera una mayoría considera a México dentro de Norteamérica, y me refiero a la región, no a el "continente". Lo que quiero es que ya pase el tiempo para que en unos 10 añitos máximo se concrete la Unión Norteamericana, y a ver qué hace Corticopia respecto a eso, jajaja, le dará un infarto creo yo. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- De hecho, Norteamérica como región, produce más que toda la Unión Europea. Además, todos los estudios indican que para el 2050, México, Brazil, Russia, China e India, junto a Estados Unidos, serán las mayores economías. Es decir, produciremos más que muchos países de la UE. Es por eso que existe ya el compromiso de los tres países para la UNA. ¿Te imaginas? Entiendo tu punto y es por eso que deseo que existan artículos de calidad, sin puntos de vista políticos. Ojalá esto termine en la revisión, si no, de todos modos no es la última opción. Métete al MSN y te digo cuál es porque este wey tiene vigilado mi log de contribuciones. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes: I monitor many user pages. And the concept of a North America Union (while desirable) is not yet comparable to that of the European Union, which is a bona fide entity. I would be the first to create such an article if and when it takes shape. Now talk amongst yourselves in MSN. :) Corticopia 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sí; comentarios reconocidos. :) Corticopia 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sí te entendí. Pero ¿Qué es exactamente lo que deseas hacer? ¿Poner una página de aclaración (disambiguation page) como por ejemplo en PAN? o ¿Simplemente crear una redirección como por ejemplo en USA? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ya lo hice. Checa Mexican Republic. Lo que tienes que hacer es escribir el nombre del artículo que aún no existe en la caja de búsqueda y presionar "Go". Ahí te dará la opción de crear el artículo con el título buscado. Para crear una redirección pones #REDIRECT [[ ]], entre los corchetes el nombre del artículo al que deseas redirigir. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oye Supaman, no creo que sea necesario poner "República Mexicana" en la introducción, porque en inglés es casi nulo el uso del término, además ni en español le llaman frecuentemente así, solo dentro de México y en determinados casos (casi siempre en anuncios). Es más frecuente "México" y "EUM". AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- We, la principal diferencia es que la mayoría de los países de Sudamérica se llaman oficialmente "República de XXXX" o "República XXXX". Para ellos es muy común. Los artículos de países formalmente deben contener el nombre oficial del país y el nombre común o local. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- We, la principal diferencia es que la mayoría de los países de Sudamérica se llaman oficialmente "República de XXXX" o "República XXXX". Para ellos es muy común. Los artículos de países formalmente deben contener el nombre oficial del país y el nombre común o local. AlexCovarrubias
- Oye Supaman, no creo que sea necesario poner "República Mexicana" en la introducción, porque en inglés es casi nulo el uso del término, además ni en español le llaman frecuentemente así, solo dentro de México y en determinados casos (casi siempre en anuncios). Es más frecuente "México" y "EUM". AlexCovarrubias
Gracias por los comentarios man, y claro que entiendo... no puedo admitir que "fue sin querer queriendo". El Distrito Federal no lo puse por dos razones: la primera porque no cabe y luego, pensé que como era de estados, quizá no era necesario. De cualquier manera, estoy trabajando en un mapa más pequeño, en donde líneas indicaran los estados del centro. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey qué onda. La pregunta que tu me haces es la misma que desde hace muuuucho yo quisiera contestar pero no sé. Yo también he deseado poner fotos de Wikipedia en inglés allá, pero no sé como. La única solución es subirla a commons. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Si quieres hacer un template en Wiki en Español, teclea en la caja de búsqueda "Plantilla:XXXX" y presiona Ir. Te dirá que no existe y saldrá un link en donde tu puedes crear la plantilla con el nombre exacto que tecleaste. Cualquier cosa que pongas en esa página, se incluirá automáticamente escribiendo el nombre de la plantilla entre llaves {{XXXX}}. Saludos. AlexCov
( Let's talk! ) 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- De nada, oye métete al MSN que tengo que decirte algo del "cabrón". AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- De nada, oye métete al MSN que tengo que decirte algo del "cabrón". AlexCov
We, qué bien te quedó. Me gusta. Lo único que creo puedes mejorar es la imagen del Escudo Nacional, porque esa no está dibujada tan profesionalmente. ¿Aceptas sugerencias? Utiliza esta imagen 
. Solo da click sobre ella y la vez en grande. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- La verdad te quedó muy bien we, se ve chido. Felicidades :D AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ya we, arreglé tu userpage, chécala. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)
♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Here in the United States we have only five legal races. American Indian or Alaska Native. White. Asian/Pacific Islander. Black/African American, and other. There is one Ethnic label, and that of course is Hispanic. In American culture, people treat many Hispanic as it's a race, since many Hispanics in the United states are of Mixed European and Indian heritage. The U.S. Census criteria(which is still used)indicates that a Mexican is to "be marked as White, unless definitely Indian or some other non-White race". I was just wandering what do Mexicans consider themselves? I was reading about how they are taught about their Indian heritage in school, and stuff like that. What about the ones without any Indian blood? Do they still consider themselves Mexican? Look, I'm just trying to figure out what Mexicans, that are not of pure Indian blood, would be considered in Mexico. Thank you.
I think you're gonna like it. Days ago I found an image of the proposed/hypotetical flag of the "North American Union" and it inspired me to create this template.
Enjoy! Ya sabrás, con todo mi "amor" para el cagapalos. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 |
This user supports the idea of a North American Union. |   |
I prefer this one instead.
--One Salient Oversight 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded, Image:Chapultepecaerea.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. If you hold the copyright information or a permission by Oscar Ruiz (the pilot and author of the image) please provide it and that will solve the issue. Thank you. the Dúnadan 02:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"(diff) (hist) . . Mexico; 22:57:02 . . (-85) . . Supaman89 (Talk | contribs) (There’s a reason for the state-abbreviations to be the way they are, so they match with the ones above and people can identify them, people won’t recognize what the official abbreviations mean.)"
Entonces por favor utiliza ISO 3166-2, no claves inventadas, y aclara que las claves utilizadas son exclusivamente para efecto del mapa, y no el enunciado abierto "State names and abbreviations for the 31 Mexican states and the Federal District". De verdad es muy confusa la forma en que son presentadas y utilizadas. Igualmente los nombres de los estados se encuentran incompletos: Veracruz e Ignacio de la Llave, Querétaro de Arteaga, etc.
El tema lo sometí a discusión y no participaste.
Muchas gracias Rodulfo 23:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK gracias por tu respuesta. Entonces el problema real es que se parte de un mapa con codificación incorrecta. ¿No sería mejor arreglar el mapa y poner las cosas como se debe? Si ves la fuente del mapa, ni siquiera tiene textos, el que lo subió los agregó libremente. Hay decenas de mapas oficiales que se pueden utilizar.
No entiendo lo de la tabla que se acomoda bien con 2 letras sólamente, eso yo creo que depende del monitor, ¿no? En 1280px que uso no le veo problema alguno a la tabla. Si se trata de tenerlos con una longitud uniforme, ISO 3166-2 asigna un código de 3 letras (y también es sancionado por INEGI).
Saludos Rodulfo 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"por ejemplo en los articulos de EUA y Brasil tambien se usan abreviaciones de dos digitos"
No sólo en los artículos. Brasil y EUA utilizan como abreviatura oficial nacional códigos de dos dígitos. Insisto en que te familiarices con ISO 3166-2, que es un estándar de validez mundial y para México son claves de 3 dígitos, y son oficiales. ISO incorpora las claves a solicitud de los gobiernos nacionales. Hasta ahora has defendido las claves que tienes y fundamentado por qué no usar las comunes, pero no haz dicho nada sobre las ISO.
Saludos
Rodulfo 00:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's just a caution. I mean, you and compatriots insist on deprecating Mexico's (whole/partial) inclusion in Central America, when clearly there are more than enough citations for that, while insisting that other entities be included in the lead for Middle America even though they are really only rarely included. If you insist in one presentation of information, there is no reason not to expect and insist for the same elsewhere.
I've been rather busy with other commitments, and thus unable to contribute as much as I'd like to, but I am keeping a lookout at changes here and there. Y, absolutamente franco, tengo cosas mejores a hacer que al mástil para no qué. Corticopia 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Aquí está la tabla que me pediste. Espero que sea de tu agrado. El color de la fuente no lo cambié porque la verdad me dió flojera jejeje pero eso tú se lo puedes cambiar.
 |
Here is a picture of me when I was a kid... |
- Fuzzy, but very handsome!! Wanderer57 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Saludos. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Qué onda, ya corregí el problema. No sé por qué puse esas medidas de tabla, si yo incluso vine a tu userpage a verlas. Bueno el problema ha quedado resuelto. Incluso modifiqué el color de borde para que combinara con los demás recuadros. En la foto que me enviaste viene negro, pero tus recuadros son como grises. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make comments such as other than white nationalists. Clearly that hasn't worked thus far, so could you not provoke your opponents. I'm trying to create progress, and comments like that will push us away from a resolution. I need you to work with me. The Hybrid 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- What is that ? This is lobby, you know? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah about this edit , like it was said before no more bashing other users, I don't want to hear any speculation over who is racist and who is a white nationalist, this is a friendly reminder but if it persists I may be forced to act further. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understood your comment completely, but I think that I do. Propose whatever you have in mind nicely, and then let's see what happens. The Hybrid 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I couldn't do it, as I went to dinner. I'm back on for a little while, so hopefully some progress can be made. I'm glad that I have your cooperation; I think that will really speed things up. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who proposed the three new pictures. See? I'm not as bad as you think I am. Sparks1979 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hybrid didn't propose any pictures. I proposed the three pictures yesterday night, including the one you liked. The second picture you put under "proposal" was found by me. Sparks1979 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- He's right. I just provided the ultimatum; he provided the pictures. The Hybrid 03:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- What difference does it make who proposed them?Supaman89 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- The difference? Maybe now you might start assuming good faith in my edits? I don't mind showing "people" - to me, it was always about showing more than one sport. Sparks1979 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe in affirmative action; I believe in democracy. If all of the pictures are equally encyclopedic, which they are, and the community supports a specific one, then I have no intentions of trying to stand in the community's way. I am mediating this, which means that I seek the solution that will make the most people happy. If oppose votes are being cast, then I think that's absolutely wonderful, because votes are being cast. I could care less how the votes are going. The Hybrid 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
| Headlines from Latin America!!! |
|
Hi. I saw you reverted the territorial surface of Mexico quoting "By far most sources...". Well, i must just say that according to the Presidential Site, the INEGI (National Institute for Geography and Satistics) the total surface of Mexico is: 1,964,375 sq. Km. I would only like to point that it doesn't really matters the amount of sources but their accuracy and since the Official Institutions quote the above mentioned amount as the correct one, i believe that it should be used. Else, could you quote your sources? What do you think? EOZyo (мѕğ) 00:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, well basically when I reverted your edit I put another source to back it up, I understand that both refferences are just as valid, but if you do a quick Google search most sources state it as 1,972,550 km² so in this case I guess we would have to go with the majority of sources. Supaman89 03:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just answered you again in the discussion page. Supaman89 03:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert ! Anyway, I tried and did that : Image:Mexico location.svg. I can still change some details if you want. If you want to be able to do the same, just install the free software inkscape (it's quite difficult to use it at the beginning). MaCRoEco 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- is it ok for the map ? MaCRoEco 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You placed some move requests for categories at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but category moves are discussed and implemented through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. If you don't mind, please relist your requests over there. Thanks! Dekimasuよ! 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Recien moviste el articulo Secretario de Desarrollo Social a Secretaría de Desarrollo Social lo cual no considero esta Ok. (lo mismo hiciste para otras articulos) Mis razones a continuación:
1) Pueden exister ambos articulos. Asi pues el articulo Secretary of Social Development puede hablar solamente sobre la posición y otro artículo que hable sobre la Secretaría como tal, es decir uno se refiere al puesto y otro a la dependencia. Ambos pueden existir. Algunos ejemplos de otros paises son: En EEUU existen articulos para ambos, para el puesto (ejemplo: Secretary of State) y para la dependencia u oficina de gobierno que encabeza el Secretario antes mencionado(siguiendo el mismo ejemplo: United States Department of State). El ejemplo anterior aplica para todas las posiciones del gabinete de EEUU. Considero que para México podemos hacer lo mismo. ¿Que dices?
2) Además, ya antes hubo una discusión sobre como llamar a las Secretarías (dependencias) y a los Secretarios y se llego a un consenso. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Terminology
Finalmente y solo como observacion, mantuviste en el articulo la frase "The secretariat is a member of the cabinet"... lo cual es incorrecto: El Secretario (la persona quien encabeza la Secretaría) es un miembro del Gabinete más no la dependencia, la oficina per se no es miembro del gabinete.
Saludos, Abögarp 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Supraman:
Just a suggestion. When you delete someone else's comments, even ignorant comments, it is a good idea to leave a note in the edit summary. For example, "Wikipedia is not meant for posting personal opinions', Salud! Wanderer57 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you might be right, but clearly it was vandalism, since they can't do it in the actual article, now they do it in the talkpage, I just hope it doesn't become frequent. Supaman89 19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, I would call it graffiti, not vandalism. They didn't actually delete or change existing comments.
- Either way, it is very common. Even though I'm watching only a few articles, I see examples every day. Wanderer57 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Supaman89: Thanks for fixing my Georgia flag for me. It never even occurred to me that I might have picked the wrong one. BTW, searching for the answer to the national bird question on the internet hasn't helped much. There are roughly equal numbers of sites that say Golden Eagle and Crested Caracara—so maybe I'll put both! :) MeegsC | Talk 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
oye we.. mis respetos que buena foto tomaste en las torres.. como le hiciste? saludos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.191.24 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll take a look shortly. Corticopia 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you've moved a number of cities in Mexico to be in the "City, State" format. I may be wrong, but looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Mexico, I believe they should have been left as simply "City" except where there's a conflict need disambiguation. Admittedly it is a convention, not a policy. Is there a good reason to add the state in? - Fordan (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Either the official ones or ISO 3166-2 would be better than made-up two letter abbreviations, but I'm not monitoring the Mexico article, so I'll let the matter drop. Also, in your revert, you deleted all the accented characters (Culiacán, Torreón, etc.) that I added. As a courtesy, you might consider going back and correcting that. Aille 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll do it, I deleted them because the English language has no accents whatsoever but ok in this case I'll put them back. Supaman89 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Supaman
Thanks for the message. I will only see a tiny part of Mexico on this trip, but better than none. Cabo San Lucas, Mazatlan, and Puerto Vallarta.
I have been practising drinking tequila. So far, so good.
What about mojitos? Are they a Mexican drink, or have I been misled?
Salud, Wanderer57 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Supraman89:
I saw your note in the discussion that mestizo is not a racist term in Mexico. I have ABSOLUTELY no reason to doubt your word on this because:
1) You are in Mexico and
2) based to our previous discussions, I believe you are honest.
What I was trying to suggest, in the long-winded note I posted a few minutes ago, is that maybe, just maybe, you and Dropmeoff are "both right" but that you two are disagreeing BECAUSE both of you do not always clearly understand what the other is trying to say, and both of you do not take the time to try to really understand each other.
To me, this is a pity, a great pity, because I am convinced that both of you are devoted to making the Mexico article excellent.
Wanderer57 00:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you are from Mexico, not in Mexico. You're much closer to where I am than I thought. I'm flying south and west today.
Cheers, Wanderer57 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
no uso mucho wiki, y no sé cómo escribirte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.244.71.91 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- We, por que no creas una cuenta para que platiquemos, checa tus mensajes. Supaman89 20:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Tranquilo, viste los mensajes que te mande desde hace rato?? obviamente no, AQUI estan, leelos y luego hablamos. Supaman89 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Todavia no ves los mensajes que te deje DESDE LA PRIMERA VEZ que me hablaste, ya te dije que estan AQUI, te hable de la manera mas amable, pero van 3 veces que no los lees y me estoy desesperando. Supaman89 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
¿Y qué va a pasar si te desesperas? --talk 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Me desespera el hecho que desde el principio te conteste de la manera mas amable, explicandote el asunto, pero por no saber como leer tus mensajes te pusiste con esta actitud, si los hubieses leido desde el principio hubieras visto el por que elimine tus mensajes y tambien que solucion te propuse al respecto y tambien por que subi tus imagenes, pero bueno como no los leiste, no es mi culpa, si quieres, puedes ver los benditos mensajes y luego comentar al respecto (una vez hayas visto la respuesta que de deje desde hace TRES dias). Supaman89 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Acabo de ver que ya me contestaste en la otra pagina, te contesto haya. Supaman89 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Vizjim 10:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Could you put the requested list together for the American articles? Will do the Cyprus ones later today. Vizjim 08:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Supaman. The image Image:Panoramamty.PNG is a collage of the photographs http://www.pbase.com/socio/image/72296345 and http://www.pbase.com/socio/image/72296346. Since Wikipedia doesn't have permission to use these photographs, and since the photographer who took them appears to have requested that the image be removed from Wikipedia, I've tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation. I have also requested that the copy of this image on Wikimedia Commons be removed. Spacepotato 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- The request to remove the picture is here. Spacepotato 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- You talked about it with him, but instead of becoming convinced that there was no problem, he got angry. That's why he's asking for the picture to be removed. Spacepotato 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for describing those ISO codes as "made up". However -- as shown by my own lack of familiarity with them -- I would still question whether they are appropriate to be used on those tables and in the article. How much official currency do they really enjoy? Not much, if any. How well known are they? Not very: at least one of them is wrong on the Mexico article at least once. I imagine most Mexicans reading the article will have the same reaction I did; foreigners will get a totally wrong impression about how we abbreviate our states' names. But, as I said above, whatever. Aille 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- The 2-letter codes are not from the ISO. ISO 3166-2:MX uses 3-letter codes. Spacepotato 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- 2-letter codes come in ISO 3166-1, Alpha-2. Check the table. Louie 23:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- ISO 3166-1 defines codes for countries, not states. Spacepotato 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- 2-letter codes come in ISO 3166-1, Alpha-2. Check the table. Louie 23:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Allie, thank you for your concern, (I think we've had already talked about this) back a few months ago it was decided that it'd be better to use the 2-letter codes for the Mexico article for various reasons mostly because the map used it that article is not the biggest, therefore it can barely fit 2 letters, it wouldn't fit 3, another reason was that even if Mexicans are more familiarized with the "variable" abbreviations, this version (English) is seen by a lot of visitors worldwide not just us (Mexicans), therefore these visitor wouldn't know what the common abbreviations mean, so it would be easier for them to identify them by just moving up the page a little bit and checking its meaning. Just for the record you can see these abbreviations being used in the Presidencia website of former president Fox. http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/
- ISO_3166-2:MX defines two letter codes for both the country and the states. There are three letter codes too.-- Louie 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- ISO 3166-2:MX uses 3-letter codes (cf. .) There are two-letter codes present in the article ISO_3166-2:MX, but they have nothing to do with ISO 3166-2:MX. Spacepotato 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- ISO_3166-2:MX defines two letter codes for both the country and the states. There are three letter codes too.-- Louie 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope that has answered your question, by the way I put those links in the talkpage so if anyone wants to edit it they will see them, and we won't have to explain it again, regards. Supaman89 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Supaman: That Presidencia page was an eye-opener (and my first reaction was "well done, Fox" -- not a reaction I often find myself having, but I'm not a great fan of the clumsier standard abbreviations: Camp., Tamps., etc). But, looking more closely, he appears to have made up his own system, he's not using ISO 3166-2:MX. Look at the directory here: his codes are AS, BC, BS, CC, CH, CL, CM, CS, DF, DG, GR, GT, HG, JC, MC, MN, MS, NL, NT, OC, PL, QR, QT, SL, SP, SR, TC, TL, TS, VZ, YN, & ZS. It appears to be an ad hoc system designed for those logos (and not particularly well: the Cs, Ms and Ss defy all logic). Are they used anywhere else in the government? And incidentally, if you access the pull-down weather box there on fox.presidencia.gob.mx, that still uses the traditional (clumsy) abbreviations, albeit in block caps. Aille 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know they're not the most frequent ones, the most common are the "variable" ones but for the purpose of the article where this template is been used, I think it was a good decision to use them (BTW I wasn't even involved in that discussion, but it makes sense, as I explained above why), chao.
Oh changing the subject, it seems like Polaron isn’t answering in the naming conventions article, but I don’t know if I should change it now because someone else may revert it (for the 4th time) and then I’ll have to keep on going with the discussion. Supaman89 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- That discussion did appear to have reach a stalemate. And it doesn't look like you'd be able to build consensus for a change like that: not enough participants in the discussion. What are you supposed to do, call for a vote? At the same time of course, most of your page moves are getting through unreverted, so maybe no-one really cares one way or the other or no-one's watching those articles. If you change the project page again, you'd only be calling attention to yourself. Regards, Aille 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a couple of days to see what happens, I just hope that they don't come up with the same questions that have already been answered, long discussions can really be exhausting. Supaman89 21:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Supaman89: creo que la regaste: the convention for naming languages is language-region, not the other way around. I just found your template and fixed it. You can check the discussion pages there to see what's going on.-- Cheers for your template, Louie 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you for fixing it, I made it based on the Castillian Spanish template but since that one is "es-es" I wasn't really sure which one goes first, one more thing though, could you add the template into this category: [[Category:User_es]] as well, thanks. Supaman89 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I moved the Cozumel article back to that title from "Cozumel, Quintana Roo". My reasoning is that since Cozumel is an island, not a city or town, naming conventions should be per geographic features, and no disambiguation is necessary. If you disagree, please discuss at Talk:Cozumel. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 11:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted back the article go to the discusssion page to see why.75.62.146.6 (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
On the template of Mexican municipalities. I just reduced the size to fit it better on the page. If you think it doesn't look better feel free to revert it. Another option could be to make a horizontal table in two columns. Either way, good job. --the Dúnadan 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Supaman
I did get to Mexico, at least to 3 ports on the west coast.
It was much too short a visit, but I knew that would be the case before I went.
I learned that a mojito is a drink that was originated in Cuba, but it is available in Mexico (at least in Puerto Vallarta).
The weather in November is much better in Mexico than in Canada. (You knew that already, I'm sure.)
Salud, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
When you moved the article Cancún to Cancún, Quintana Roo on Nov 5th 2007, the redirect from Cancun to Cancún became a double redirect, which doesn't actually take you to the article, just shows a redirect page.
I'm going to fix the double redirect now and check for any others. In the future, if you're going to move articles, please take the time yourself to do this check. Or alternatively, if you don't want to take the trouble to do this maintenance, then don't move pages. -lethe talk + 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cancún, Mexico was also a double redirect. -lethe talk + 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- To fix a double redirect, go to the double redirect page. It's a redirect, so when you go to the page, you'll get redirected to the second redirect page. Click on the small link at the top to get back to the double redirect. Click edit and enter #REDIRECT Article. Sounds kinda confusing, so I'll give you an example. User:Supaman89/Double redirect. Give it a try! Click on User:Supaman89/Double redirect at the top to get to the un-redirected page, then click edit. -lethe talk + 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- ok that was really confusing, I clicked on this link User:Supaman89/Double_redirect and then cleaned the page but the page still exists, sso from what I understood if you put the ending "/double redirect" at the end of any article, you'll see how many redirects it has? is that right? Supaman89 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like you blanked the page User:Supaman89/Redirect. That was not the right course of action. I have un-done it, in case you want to try again. Let me say again what should be done. First, let me explain how to bypass a redirect. For example, the article Mejico is a redirect to Mexico. If you want to see the non-redirected article, click on Mejico, and just under the title, you should see a small link which reads "Redirected from Mejico". Click on that link from the article Mejico and you should see a page with an arrow and a link to Mexico. Notice how the URL says "&redirect=no" at the end. That's how you get from an article to the redirect which you used to arrive at the article.
- Now in the double redirect on your page. You edited the page User:Supaman89/Redirect, but you should have edited the page User:Supaman89/Double_redirect. The double redirect page redirected you to the single redirect page, which you then edited. Instead, you should have followed the small link at the top, just below the title, which read "Redirected from User:Supaman89/Double redirect". Click on the link and you'll be taken to the double redirect page which will have "title=User:Supaman89/Double_redirect&redirect=no" in the URL. Edit that page, and replace the redirect to User:Supaman89/Redirect to a redirect to User:Supaman89/Page. Thus you should change the text from "#REDIRECT User:Supaman89/Redirect" to "#REDIRECT User:Supaman89/Page".
Hey, good work! You turned the double redirect at User:Supaman89/Double_redirect into a single redirect. Now there are two single redirects pointing to User:Supaman89/Page, rather than a redirect pointing to a redirect pointing to User:Supaman89/Page. I hope it's clear how that works now?
I noticed from other messages on your talk page that you've been moving other articles lately. I hope you'll remember to check for double redirects every time you do. After you move a page, click on the "what links here" link. It will show you a list of all pages linking to the page you've just moved. The redirects will be indented from the list. The double redirects will be indented twice. Often there are no double redirects, but they break wikipedia, so it's good to always check for them.
I consent with Juan Gabriel’s picture being remove for a better representation of the articles format structure and Thalia not being consider a diva. However, I disagree with Luis Miguel not being consider a pop singer when singing with a mariachi. This is on the basis that a pop singer doesn’t stop being a pop singer primarily because he or she may not be performing a pop song at the time. Although it’s true the image may cause confusion it has being well establish that Latin pop, mixes rhythms such as salsa, samba, banda and reggae (see Wikipeida article on “Latin pop”). In addition the use of the color green diminishes the representation of the genre as an American establishment and depicts such genera as another cheap American byproduct. The color blue is a better fit being a stronger, vivre, flashier color like the genre itself.
Nonetheless green may have being chosen as the color base on patriotism, but is being patriotic worth deafening you? Furthermore, is it the way to go? If green is steal the ideal. Can it be a darker shade of green? Lastly, the Paulina Rubio picture was left because it fits with you’re convention and ideas not for any other reason. Use the discussion page. 75.62.146.6 (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For fair warning, I just wanted to say that I've warned both User:Jcmenal and User:Corticopia about their edit warring. While you only have two edits there far enough apart, I would suggest not escalating it further. You might consider Wikipedia:Third opinion. Someone should just say "let's go the talk page" in an edit summary and go from there. If the other doesn't follow and simply decide to continue edit warring, they are then being disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you moved State of Mexico to Mexico State.. You may not have intended to include the period at the end of the title. I can move the page to Mexico State without the extra dot, but I'm reluctant to just do that, because the article was only recently retitled, following a discussion on the talk page, from Mexico (state) to State of Mexico. Have you seen that discussion? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Supaman89. It appears that you copied and pasted Municipalities of the State of Mexico to Municipalities of Mexico State. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, Geniac 21:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- "do you think you could tell me how to move and article's name to one of its redirects without having to copy and paste it?" -- See Help:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. --Geniac (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've been wathcing some of those back-and-forwards on Mexico articles, but I'm reluctant to get dragged into nasty edit wars over it. Fact is, Mexicans and Central Americans know Mexico ain't in Central America, but the Rest of the World isn't so sure. (Hell, large chunks of the Rest of the World aren't even sure about the difference between Mexico and New Mexico.) About the cities getting moved to "city, state": The facts there are that WP:NC indicates Acapulco, not Acapulco, Guerrero. If you're going to break that convention you need to be a lot more persuasive that you've appeared to be so far. But Australia and its cities seems to follow a similar convention to what you want: maybe you could investigate how they managed that, try and follow the same. And try and get more Mexican editors involved (there are one or two out there, I suppose) -- of course, from the national point of view, it makes all the sense in the world to have "Pachuca" at "Pachuca, Hidalgo": Problem is convincing the outsiders of that.
Another thing: I've disagreed with you on a couple of issues -- state abbreviations, San Juan de los Lagos -- but you've always remained courteous in those disputes. That's to your credit. Saludos, Aille (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and about the maps on Geography of Mexico? My view is that the others are right in leading with the lame CIA map, which indicates a number of cities whose names can be expected to mean something to an outside audience -- not so with the states: how many foreigners have you met that don't even know Mexico's divided into states? The states map would go well later in the article: start a section on "political geography" (just steal a few lines from the 'states of mexico' article) and put it there. I thin that'd work. Aille (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Middle America sounds to me like either German for Central America or housewifes in Kansas. Very dubious (you're on better grounds there than with the city names) but I'm reluctant to get into an edit war with a dedicated reverter; not enough hours in the day. Maybe you could try Wikipedia:Third opinion? Aille (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate and confusing that we have the same name for our country, our city and one of our states.
It's interesting that you started out with "State of Mexico" but switched to "Mexico State".
I can see that the problem runs deep in Wikipedia: re "México" (the state) previously moved or redirected to "Mexico (state)", now redirected to "Mexico State".
In searching the internet I've seen as many references to "State of Mexico" as "Mexico State" but it just doesn't sound right to me.
I always say state of California - never California State.
I always say that I grew up in Xalapa, in the state of Veracruz - not in Veracruz State.
My sister's home address is in the "State of Mexico", not in "Mexico State".
"Estado de México" translates literally to "State of Mexico".
My suggestions are:
1) Valle de Bravo -- just by itself: there are no other Valle de Bravo's accross the universe, are there? -- (Well, stricktly speaking, I do admit that the possibilities might be infinite).
2) Valle de Bravo, State of Mexico
3) Valle de Bravo (in the mexican state of Mexico)
I checked with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico There are a few references to "state of" - one is precisely to the "state of México"; others are to the state of Guerrero and the state of Nuevo León; there are none to "México state"
The entry in en.wikipedia for the mexican state of "Mexico" should be "fixed" accordingly.
The title should be plain "Mexico". The text should read something along the lines of the entries for the other mexican states, ie. "México ( aka State of México and usually abreviated Edomex) is one of the 31 states of the country of México...
This looks to me as a typical case in need of (at least) "triple disambiguation": Mexico the country vs Mexico the state vs Mexico the city - I am new in helping with wikipedia: how does that work?
This, of course, applies both to the es.wikipedia as to the en.wikipedia.
Regards,
So sorry. I've just seen that there was some sort of discussion on the subject and that the ruling has been decided.
Supaman, there was no consensus regarding the OR codes created by Alex Covarrubias.. Unsourced information, such as OR codes must be replaced with real postal abbreviations. The codes misinform the reader, and they are not used anywhere else in Mexico, much less in Wikipedia. Please think about it before reverting. --the Dúnadan 04:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello duuuuuude. I'm back again. Keep me updated! AlexC. ( Talk? ) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Mexican State Indicators requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
hey, I noticed you moved the article and changed some names to mexico state instead of state of mexico. I think state of mexico is the more approriate and common name, and the move discussion was to move it from mexico (state) to state of mexico. I was wondering if there was any reason to do this that i'm missing, or if there's a discussion about it, since I haven't been able to find one. I just think mexico state sounds kind of funny, and most or all of the states in the us, under their infobox have a "state of " name. thanks! Reply here or in my userpage. Solid Reign (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- hi, I still think state of mexico is more appropriate, don't you? I mean, I can see myself saying I'm going to Mexico City for the weekend, but somehow I'm going to mexico state for the weekend sounds really awkward. Most people call it The State of Mexico. I don't know if that would be the official name but it's how it's known. You really don't think it should be moved? -Solid Reign (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- hey supaman, while I understand your reasons, I just don't think it's up to us how people call it. The official name is Mexico, so there is really nothing wrong with people calling it Mexico. The more common name is State of Mexico according to google, and to what I've heard being used. According to WP:NC we have to use the more common name. I hope you agree, I'm going to propose a move back to State of Mexico. Solid Reign (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- hey, I'm from Mexico too, Mexico City in fact. However, the official name is Mexico, since you would not say "Yo voy a ir al estado de Estado de México". Here's the 43rd article in the constitution, they call it just Mexico . To tell you the truth I'm not really so sure which is better now that I've thought of it that's why I wanted to try and reach a wider consensus since it all just seems kind of arbitrary. Solid Reign (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Entiendo lo que dices, pero creo que un artículo de una enciclopedia no se debe de basar en lo que vaya a hacer la gente. No nos debería de preocupar los efectos del artículo, solo que sea correcto, ¿no lo crees? La mayoría de la gente, creo, lo buscará bajo State of Mexico, y para evitar que la mayoría de la gente pase por un redireccionamiento, deberíamos de usar el nombre más común. No se que opines. Entiendo el problema de confusión que puede causar el que diga la gente cosas como "Toluca, Mexico" o cosas del tipo pero creo que no es razón suficiente para escoger ese nombre para el artículo. -Solid Reign (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- hey, I'm from Mexico too, Mexico City in fact. However, the official name is Mexico, since you would not say "Yo voy a ir al estado de Estado de México". Here's the 43rd article in the constitution, they call it just Mexico . To tell you the truth I'm not really so sure which is better now that I've thought of it that's why I wanted to try and reach a wider consensus since it all just seems kind of arbitrary. Solid Reign (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- hey supaman, while I understand your reasons, I just don't think it's up to us how people call it. The official name is Mexico, so there is really nothing wrong with people calling it Mexico. The more common name is State of Mexico according to google, and to what I've heard being used. According to WP:NC we have to use the more common name. I hope you agree, I'm going to propose a move back to State of Mexico. Solid Reign (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This report concerns you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Supaman89:
I just want to say I started a section HERE for discussion of the business of listing musicians in the article.
Hopefully it can be discussed there than in edit summaries.
Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Supaman89:
Is that telescope in Puebla in operation? I'm finding conflicting information on the web.
Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you feel it necessary to move Toluca to Toluca, Mexico State? Just curious. Thelmadatter (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
