User talk:Rune.welsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THIS USER IS, FIRST AND FOREMOST, AN EDITOR

Monobook.css (CAUTION! Tested on Firefox and Opera; known to break page display on IE)
Monobook.js (Tools are commented. Lots of goodies!)
Toolbar template 
Personal message template
Pages on my userspace
Edit count
Archive 1: 2005.04.27 - 2005.09.18;
Archive 2: 2005.09.21 - 2005.12.07;
Archive 3: 2005.12.10 - 2006.01.22;
Archive 4: 2006.01.23 - 2006.02.18;
Archive 5: 2006.02.18 - 2006.04.26;
Archive 6: 2006.05.01 - 2006.09.13;
Archive 7: 2006.09.14 - 2006.??.??;
Archive 8: TBA

[edit] Dan Matthews

That you would consider a section that he "praised" a murderer (referenced to a website dedicated to smear campaigns, no less) as "NPOV" is astonishing. Doesn't WP:BLP apply here or do you expect other users to turn the attack into something NPOV? Jean-Philippe 16:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about protecting the subject It's about writing good article and respecting our policies. I'm sure that you, as an admin, know more about those policies than I do, so enlighten me if I'm missing the point here. I saw the article consisting solely of a phrase describing him as controversial, praising a murderer and mocking the late Steve Irwin and immediately suspected something was wrong. Jean-Philippe 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring my complaint of the whole article consisting on an attack on the subject against WP:BLP, providing instead sources defending that attack. Arguing seem a moot point at best. Jean-Philippe 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Jean-Philippe 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican articles

Hi Rune.welsh. I posted the following answer on my user page this morning, but since I'm not sure you're watching that, I'll add it here too. I just noticed you are the main author of Josefa Ortiz de Domínguez. A couple of months ago I wrote an article on her off-line, not expecting to find one already there. When I went to upload it, the existing article was so good all I could do was add a couple of sentences.

--Rbraunwa 18:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rune.welsh. Thank you for your kind comments. I've really enjoyed working on the Mexican articles. I have very good sources, so that's why the articles have turned out well. That and the fact that I really like Mexico and Mexican history.

I left Oaxaca in late June for an extended visit to the United States (Los Angeles and Seattle). That was after the demonstrators had occupied the center, but coincidentally just before things got really serious. I'm planning on returning in November. From what I hear from friends, things are definitely not good now, but I hope the issues will be resolved soon.

--Rbraunwa 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Rune. If possible, I'd like your support in including one sentence in the AMLO entry regarding the number of Mexicans who believe that fraud took place in the election. I sourced the poll twice, and it was deleted. Moreover, the person who deleted it believed it was not pertinent. I clearly disagree, as is the high number of Mexicans who believe fraud took place before and during the election that has given rise to the 42% figure. I'd appreciate your assistance, especially in light of all the negative poll data that regarding AMLO just above my sentence. We should strive for fair and balanced, shouldn't we? [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)]

Hello Rune, again. If possible, I'd appreciate it if you could glance at the AMLO entry, as a user, in my opinion, has introduced elements that I believed had already been settled. I cite a couple of them in AMLO talk page. For example, many months ago, we had inlcuded a sentence which described some of AMLO's programs as populist and irresponsible. Others than cited the fact that Vazquez Mota, now one of Calderon's Cabinet Secretaries, had praised and implemented some of these same "populist" programs. In the interest of space, we then arrived at,, roughtly, the AMLO entry we now have. I'd like your input, if possible. [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 06:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] My Vandalism

Misleading edit summaries??!!

I AM THE ONLY VANDAL TO PUT "Vandalism" AS AN EDIT SUMMARY!!!!

Kindly, --For Our Nation's honor 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Convergence (Mexico)

You have twice removed the article for Socialist Convergence (Mexico) without winning consensus on the talk page. Please stop that. I cannot see how an established editor like yourself gets caught up in repeatedly deleting accurate information from Wikipedia without using Talk. That is enough to win you a warning for Vandalism. I'm confused. It doesn't seem like you. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Duncan 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. Let's discuss this on the Talk page. However, do not think that you are merging information when you overwrite a page with a redicrect. You are removing information. Let's talk. Please not I have removed the references to CS being a party, awaiting further discussion. --Duncan 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You have done this again. I am baffled! Has someone stolen your password? Is this really you? When you redirect the page, you are not merging at all, you are removing information. Unless you come to Talk, then we will have to find arbitration. Which method you you prefer? --Duncan 14:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. let's stop these edits and talk. When you do you think you are carrying all the information over? On the NPA page, there are three sentences about CS, on the CS page, there is more. But even if this was not the case, why are you redirecting this page instead of discussing it? --Duncan 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, so we agree that there's a little more information in that page than you hace added to the redirect page. If you want to discuss whether or not this page should be redirected or merged, please join us on the Talk page. I have deep respect for your contributions to Wikipedia and appreciate my limited standing here, but I am sure that we will find a better way forward through Talk than through reverting. --Duncan 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate that you're frustrated. I'm sorry if I've annoyed you. With hindsight turning this page into a redirect, when it was clear that other editors didn't agree with that ideas, was never going to be an easy choice. I also think that any cycle of reverts is a signal that it's time to pause. I suggest you take as much time as you like and come back to the Talk page when you want. We are all committed, long-term, editors; though neither Soman nor I have perhaps your expertise. We should work together if we can. --Duncan 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of lion and child

Hey! I know you're watching the El Ángel de la Independencia page so you'll probably find out about it; anyway I wanted to let you know that I finally managed to take a picture of the lion and child sculpture on the Angel and I took the liberty of adding it to the page. An apology because it took me over a year to get the picture and it's not *that* good to boot, but hopefully it'll serve its purpose. Saludos! Roadmr 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steggla

Please could you take a look at this article. I'm a bit bemused. Thanks --Dweller 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks --Dweller 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hola

Hello Rune, yes I've been making some contributions recently...actually i havent stop doing that its just that i'm making less edits than in the past..but im still an active wikipedian!

I think you did a good job by creating article National political association. I fully disagree with the user that refuses to acknowledge IFE's authority when it comes to registration of parties in Mexico since the IFE is the only authority that can do that (on the federal level). Local electoral authorities have authority to give registration to local political parties as happens in Colima with the Colima Democratic Association or as happened in Nuevo León with the recently extinct Partido Republicano just to mention two examples.

I dont disagree with the idea of having standalone article for some NPAs but specificaly for the Socialist Convergence (Mexico) i dont think that article is a prospect of being expanded so I support your idea of merging it and redirect to article National political association.

Saludos, Abögarp 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ps. From Dec 05 to Aug 06 i was designated Consejero Electoral of the IFE in my state so im very familiar with this topic (COFIPE, etc.)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

[edit] Vida Guerra protection

I'm not sure if the protection tag currently on the Vida Guerra page is the right one. It suggests that there is some ongoing dispute over content, yet an examination of the Talk Page reveals no such conflict; is there not a tag relating to protecting a page from spamming (which appears to be the reason if I read the History right)? In any event, it might be helpful to place an explanation on the talk page so folks understand why the page has been protected; I was a little puzzled myself until I thought to check the edit history. I wanted to make a minor change to one of the image captions that I felt was rather unencyclopedic. Also, it should be noted that there's a campaign under way by some editors to remove all magazine covers from Wikipedia as the current interpretation of the fair use rules suggests that such covers can only be used in articles specifically about the magazines (so Vida'ss Playboy cover might not be long for this world). Cheers! 23skidoo 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Universal

As I saw that you reverted cjwirth's edits on "La Jornada" article, I have come here to draw your attention to the "El Universal" article where he wrote several biased (and radical I would say) statements where he said that the paper was endangering Mexico's democracy because of it's bias in favor of Lopez Obrador. Nothing could be farther from the truth; to anyone acquainted enough with Mexican media it is evident that El Universal is one of the most objective newsspapers on circulation, furtheremore, is one of the most read. I implore that you follow these edits as your an editor so we can keep wikipedia as the accurate, objective source of information it is.

Good you let me know, I'll be watching the article now. Please don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. Saludos. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A tip on a list

I see you do a lot of opposes on WP:FLC, so I'd like to ask you to assess the list I compiled: List of inhabited islands of Croatia. Does it pass your criteria? If not, what needs to be done? --Dijxtra 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I convert those superscript links to <ref>, it's going to make the references section bigger than the list itself :-) Are you sure you think it would look nice? --Dijxtra 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll convert them. --Dijxtra 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Valencia

Hi Rune.welsh. I just finished the article on this individual. I am now moderately in favor of including him on the list of Mexican presidents. In favor, because there was a formal transfer of power from a constitutional president to him, and he is listed here as a "constitutional" president himself. Moderately, because he occupied the position for such a brief period, because he held it on an interim basis and was never intended to exercise power, because it was part of a coup and not really a constitutional transfer, and because he is not listed in a majority of lists of Mexican presidents. However, he is listed in quite a few. I thought I would get your input on the question.

By the way, the list of Mexican presidents has many, many problems. For this period at least nearly all the dates disagree with the dates in my sources. However, my sources don't always agree with each other, so it would be a major project to go through, compare the list and the sources, and make decisions about what dates were most likely to be correct. Perhaps someone has already done this, but I doubt it. Not only are many dates wrong, but some transfers of power are completely omitted, usually when they were for short terms or perhaps when they were nominal rather than real transfers. All that needs to be looked into. And when the number of transfers of power is not agreed on, the ordinals are useless. Worse then useless, they are false and misleading.

I might be able to take on this project, but I can't do it immediately. Right now I am traveling and away from some of my best reference material.

It would make sense in the interim to remove the ordinals entirely and to indicate somehow that the transition dates are provisional. The easiest way to do that would just be to state it in the introduction of the article. Another option would be to remove the days, leaving just the months and years. Even some of the months are in dispute, but omitting the days would indicate a lack of precision, and would be sufficient I think for the time being.

Anyway, I would like to hear what you think. I'm also going to post a copy of this message to the talk page, and to Philfree's user page.

--Rbraunwa 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:For Our Nation's Honor

Shall I remind you a forgotten guideline?
You can't put on you userpage:

• A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities
• Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
• Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages)
• Personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, or other non-encyclopedic material
• Polemical statements:

libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea

- Jimbo Wales[1]

• Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project
• Communications with people uninvolved with the project
• Images which you are not free to use (see below)

I use it only to list my sockpuppets (aka: simplify your work) -User:For Our Nation's Honor 02:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burkem

I'm afraid he's gone on a tear again, adding a bunch of unsourced junk genealogy and damaging articles on the way [2]. Given that he seems to edit about once a month in one-day bursts, more permanent measures may be called for — his positive contributions to Wikipedia have been just about nil, and he requires quite a bit of effort to clean up after. Choess 04:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Soldaderas

Really, soldaderas weren't part of a national liberation movement? Does it hurt anything to include them in that category? What reason is there not to include them? Tubezone 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, you know a lot more about Mexico than I do, you live there, how about you adding some editorial content to this encyclopaedia and help fill out some of the half a gazillion half-assed articles, empty stubs and red links on Mexico, instead of doing 20 nitpicking reverts and edits every day? I mean really, an old fat güero like me is the expert on Pancho Villa? I mean, there's something horribly wrong when a fat white turd is making corrections to the Spanish Wikipedia article on Pancho Villa. Mexicans outnumber me 140,000,000 to 1.

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Metropolitan areas in Mexico

I have reviewed your proposed article and read the reference .pdf paper published by INEGI. Overall, it is a good article that incoporates a lot of information of the .pfd paper and describing metropoloitan areas as defined oficially by INEGI. I have a couple of concerns, though:

• The map you did, which was probably based on the map shown in the .pdf INEGI paper, highlights the municipalities in which the metropolitan area is located, whether the aglomeration expands beyond its limits or whether it is contained by it. I find it a little misleading. The definition, as given by INEGI, is based exclusively on the municpalities ("municipios"), whether a given municipality contains more than one city and whether the cities contained by a single municipality conform one aglomeration or not. As you pointed out, municipalities in the Northern states are much larger than in the South, which helps explain why the conurbations in Chihuahua and Coahuila seem to be a lot bigger than Greater Mexico City, the Monterrey metropolitan area and the Metropolitan area of Puebla, even though, these are larger both in actual conurbated area as well as in population. Given that Chihuahua (city or metro) does not extend through the whole municipality, highlighting the municipality to show the conurbated area could be misleading, in the same way highlighting all the Federal District could be misldeading too. While you do point this fact out later on the article, I still doubt the usefulness the map, both in the INEGI article and in this wikipedia article. But I guess it's just a personal opinion. In any case a simple star showing location without showing extent (area) would be a better option.
• The population figures you show are based on the .pdf paper, which in turn, come from the 2000 Census. I would rather keep the population figures from the "Conteo 2005" that I provided, simply for the sake of showing the most "up to date" information. Some metropolitan areas show a dramatic increase in population, either as a result of actual population growth (by immigration I assume) or by the incorporation of more municipalities that have been conurbated in recent years (Valle de México increased very little, while Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla, Toluca and Tijuana show amazing increases of nearly 20% in just 5 years). Here is a link on a Powerpoint presentation that describes 5 metropolitan areas, published by INEGI after the 2005 Conteo: Síntesis Conteo 2005. Go to the slide that shows "Zonas Metropolitanas más pobladas" and you can click ony of the 5 metropolitan areas showed. As for the rest of the metropolitan areas that are not shown in this presentation, I obtained the population figures from the following query page Consulta; simply select "zona metropolitana" and any variable (say, "sexo" or "edad" it really doesn't matter but select just one, it's just an extra variable that for some reason the query form needs). You will obtain an unsorted list of all "metropolitan zones", with the exception of one (I can't remember which one, I believe it is Chihahua, but I am not sure; I believe it is a glitch in the programming code that "skips" this particular city). You can also obtain detailed excel sheets on the municipalities that conform each metropolitan area, but I can't remember where I got those from. A soon as I find out, I'll let you know.
• Finally, the definition of the Valle de México metropolitan area is conflicting with the definition agreed upon by the D.F., México and Hidalgo governments as well as the federal goverment in December 2005, which defines the positive Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México (that is, the real conurbation) formed only by the 16 delegaciones and 41 municipalities. The paper also defines the normative Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México (the future conurbation, not yet attained), formed by the 16 delegaciones and 58 municipalities (see the article Greater Mexico City, agreement and the CONAPO publication: [3], which was published, ironically, 2 years before). I don't know which definition is correct, INEGI or CONAPO, since both are official institutions! =) If you have a chance, read this paper, and tell me what you think of it. Maybe the INEGI paper incorporates the CONAPO definition and I didn't realize this is the case (I only skimmed through the INEGI paper).

Well, I will try reading through the whole INEGI paper in detail as soon as I get the chance. Regards, --Alonso 17:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Lost episodes FLC

Hello, I believe you said that the List of Lost episodes featured list candidacy was to be closed two days ago (on the 13th). I'm just wondering what the status on it is. Just to clarify there are 12 Supports (including 4 Strong Supports) and 4 Opposes. Wondering where this goes now. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 03:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• So why are 'opposes' worth more than 'supports'? Wikipedical 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cogito Ergo Sumo

Hello Rune! I reported Cogito ergo sumo because I suspected he was the anonimous IP user that kept reverting the article North America. I suspected because they both support the same POV, they both are from Toronto Canada, and because of the same style of writing. Well, I was not wrong. He was blocked for being 142.150.134.57 what do you think? :o AlexCovarrubias 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He's back... take a look at Cogito ergo sumo contributions log and compare it with the new registered user Ex post factoid... very interesting he's a new user and he's editing exactly the same articles Cogito used to be "interested" in. For example, Central America, Data (Star Trek) and Isaac Asimov. Well, I guess this is called "sockpuppet", right? I already made a request of investigation. Do you think those guys really do their job? AlexCovarrubias 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rune... I used to be suspicious about User:E Pluribus Anthony and Cogito being the same person. Apparently, Pluribus was proved with using sockpuppets, I read that once in the talk page of North America. Guess what? Very intriguing that now the three users are interesed in the same articles and topics... that at least Pluribus and Cogito are from Canada... and that the three of them use latin in their nicknames. Interesting, huh? I think we have a case of what I would call a long-term comitted vandal or user with a problem of attitude. What can be done in order to stop this? Where do I have to report? Check their contributions log. AlexCovarrubias 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Cogito ergo sumo and Ex post factoid were both sockpuppets of E Pluribus Anthony. Those accounts were indefinitely blocked. AlexCovarrubias 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your strong support and will do my best to prove worthy of it. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] special:chemicalsources

Hi! I just decided to spam some people directly, who I know are very active on chemicals. There is now a wiki running on http://chemistry.poolspares.com (a site created by Nickj from the wikimedia IRC channel, the site will be taken offline again in a couple of weeks), where I have now hosted a small wikipedia. It runs two extensions I have written to the wikipedia software, a special page (for chemical sources, see also wikipedia:chemical sources and a chemform tag (for easy input of chemical formulae). Could you have a look, and comment on it (if useful I would like to try to let Tim or Brion enable it on wikipedia, though I feel some resistance there). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Return_to_castle_wolfenstein_box.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Return_to_castle_wolfenstein_box.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Working on this article" template

Hola Rune.welsh:

I remember I have seen somewhere a yellow template that says something like "there is a user currently working on this article [...]", which main prupouse is to let others know some work is going on and prevent editing conflicts. I have been expanding the article of the city of Monterrey a lot, adding pictures, info and maps and I've had this problem. Can you help me out? I need to find out what template that is, I was unable to find it. ¡Muchas gracias por tu ayuda! AlexCovarrubias 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kryder

I'll think about it. I'd rather be on the safe side, though. DS 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Kryder now redirects to Moore. DS 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template:Campaignbox Taos Revolt

Oops! Done now; thanks for catching that! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burkem

I'd welcome your thoughts on User_talk:Burkem#Undoing_the_damage. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Starfleet starships ordered by class

Why was it failed? --Cat out 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

[edit] posmodern2000 "nonsense"

I don´t know if this is the correct place to put this message.

Well, if you are really interested in discuss arguments about Emiliano Zapata, then I invite you to return to the talk page of the article. You wrote about my "incivility", but being banned by Maunus and Tubezone and being answered with lies didn´t help it to my "civility". --Posmodern2000 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Saskatchewan general elections

List of Saskatchewan general elections is currently up for nomination for Featured List status. As you commented last time on its (unsuccessful) attempt, I was wondering if you would like to have another look, and see if it merits promotion.

Tompw 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRIMC

Hello Rune, would you please comment on this? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BRIMC AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured lists

Hi. I've been told you 're the moderator for featured lists candidates. If so, would you mind clarifying how the FL candidacy process actually works. What I mean is, who decides whether a list will pass? Is it based on the opinions of a majority of reviewers or can the objections of a single reviewer hold it up? If the latter is the case, then what if that reviewer's objections don't appear to follow the criteria for featured lists? In other words, if the objections are invalid and overly subjective, do they still prevent an article from passing? I'm asking with reference to this [4]. One user (Renata) insists that the list must use certain templates, which are technically difficult to employ and do not appear to be necessary according to the featured list criteria. She also wants an extremely long introduction, whereas the criteria say that the intro should be "concise". If you could clear up this situation, we'd be very grateful. Thanks. (Obviously, if you aren't the relevant FL moderator, then completely ignore this message and my apologies for wasting your time).--Folantin 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. We're all a bit confused. The ambiguity seems to be over what "concise" actually means. Best, Moreschi 13:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the lead could be made a little bit longer, to provide a bit more context for the list, but I have supported it. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican copyright law and Wikipedia

Greetings- I'm an American wiki contributor living in Mexico City. I noticed your comments about possible copyright violations on Joseph Solis in Australia's user talk page and I wonder if you know much about this subject? I have failed to find a clear Wikipedia statement as to how Mexican "public domain" and/or "fair use" functions, especially in respect to how it affects contributions to Wikipedia, but I would like very much to know. May I, for example, steal, without hesitation, any text or images from the Presidente's web site? Is that determined by Mexican federal law, or by the specific public-release by the seated president? Maybe you could start a Mexican copyright law page in the Wikipedia namespace to help wiki editors understand how it works. Saludos! - Eric 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Copyedit of Mayan languages

Hi RUne Welsh - I would appreciate it greatly if you would help me with a thorough copyedit of Mayan languages which I hope to drive up to GA and possibly FA within the coming weeks. Maunus 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porfirio Diaz

Hi Rune

Diaz had not at all japanece blood.

Juan Nepomuceno Mendez was president of Mexico more than 2 months in 1876 - 1877.

Diaz was not a hero in the mexican war. He was only a boy, as a volunteer only with nothing important done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Metropolitan areas of Mexico

Hi Rune. I don't know if you were still interested in remaking the article on Metropolitan areas of Mexico. I guess we can incorporate some of the stuff in your proposal to the existing article. I was also thinking of making a list of "Most populated cities in Mexico". Most people tend to confuse the concept of city with that of metropolitan area; for example saying that Monterrey is the third most populated city, when it is in fact the tenth, though its metro area is the third most populated. (Similar to what is shown here for US cities vs. metro areas). Let me know what you think. --Alonso 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guest Stars on The Simpsons

I'd hate to see this article fail the process, so please tell me precisely what it is you said needed adding. We added a link the official FOX episode guide, which contains links to each and every episode, and each episode page lists the guests. Also added are 3 unofficial guides that are the lists I used to compile the version on Wikipedia. Are there any other sources we need? Adding a source for each FOX article page would REALLY clutter up the article. -- Scorpion0422 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nova Scotia general elections

Thanks for supporting List of Nova Scotia general elections in its successful attempt to become a Fetaured List. I was begining to worry that it wouldn't get enough support votes, so it was much apreciated. :-) Tompw (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture

Why did you fail List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture? There was no object (or support) votes on the sub-page. I apologise if you deleted it based on a policy I'm not yet aware of. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)