User talk:Dúnadan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!== Saludos J. Alonso! My name's Nathaniel, but I go by the username Spangineer around here. I hope you enjoy editing wikipedia and that you stick around. If you have any questions about anything related to wikipedia, just let me know – go to my talk page, hit the plus sign (+) next to "edit this page" at the top and leave me a note. You can sign your name after you're done by typing ~~~~. A few links you might find useful include: Tutorial, Manual of Style, Community Portal, Policy Library and perhaps most importantly, the Sandbox, where you can just play around and try different things. Have a great day, and again, any questions, just let me know! Happy editing! Spangineer ∞ 19:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awarding Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
For the way you resolved the Mexico dispute in Second City, and your tireless efforts to improve articles about Mexico, including: Mexico, Etymology of Mexico, Economy of Mexico, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Jalisco, and Monterrey. May your tireless efforts continue to improve the quality of Mexico-related articles. Thank you! Hari Seldon 04:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages of Mexico

Great work! And thank you for holding on a bit on the Constitution thing. The article just needs some minor tweaks, like linking to each language family's article, but that's nothing to loose sleep over. The IFAI request will take a couple weeks to get resolved, but I'll keep you posted if there are any new developments. Thank you! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Mexico

hey please can you help us to make a good article about the culture of mexico, i want to traslate the spanish version of the culture of mexico, please help me! --Mexxxicano


[edit] Mexicans and Salsa

You seem to be the wiki-expert for the Mexico article, so I would like you to debunk a rumour that I have heard. Is it true that Mexicans use salsa as a condiment on virtually every meal? I have been told (and read, right here on wikipedia) that Mexican culture uses a spicy homemade salsa called 'Zaboura' as casually as North American culture puts ketchup on a steamed ham. Thanks, and keep up the good the work


[edit] Reforma

Alonso, I have seen your contributions and I would appreciate if you can please revise the Reforma article. It is my impression that some contributors are letting their bias impregnate the articles, and making misleading comments that sometimes do not accurately represent the truth. Gràcies. Andres Lopez

[edit] Metropolitan areas in Mexico

Since you tend to edit around those articles, you may be interested in the rewrite of List of metropolitan areas of Mexico I'm working on at the moment. You can see it here. Comments welcome. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know enough, or have the time, to actively edit. However, I will watch the pages and double check information and grammar for Monterrey, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Queretaro and Puebla. Hari Seldon 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Mexico

No, I think you did not read my comment correctly. The only reason I brought up my adminship status was that it almost sounded like you thought Alex was an admin here; he is not. However, I do know what you mean. Admins are not allowed to verify the underlying IP addresses of users; only those with the checkuser permission are allowed to do so. And about the content, I was making the exact same point you were making, by the way. But I was also asking you to not make accusations of vandalism, especially when they do not fall within the policy definition we have here. His edits are not a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia, so they do not qualify as vandalism. Bad wikiquette? Certainly. But vandalism? No. Please tone down the rhetoric in that page... Titoxd(?!?) 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monterrey and Mexican articles...

What brought you to the article Monterrey? I'm interested in knowing because this seems to be kind of a personal thing against me, for accusing you of sockpuppetry. It is very strange you are suddenly interested in the article. If it is a personal crusade against me, just say it because right now it is very obvious. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no argument with you, J Alonso, and agree with your arguments. I would prefer to go with Dina's solution of naming at least both Monterrey and Guadalajara as improtant cities in the "Second City" article, and I don't mind it being deleted from the Monterrey page AS LONG AS it is not added in Guadalajara or other Mexican city page. I prefer consensus and NPOV solutions, and greatly agree that naming a second city is, at best, subjective. However, I took Raveonpraghga's accusations that I was committing vandalism very seriously, and I demonstrated through actions, arguments, and sources that my claims are not without merit, and that his claims and actions are without merit and that it is he who was comitting vandalism. If we can agree on all this, then I think we can proceed. Lets take this discussion to Talk:Monterrey, in which I am sure AlexCovarrubias, you, I, and other editors can reach a consensus. Hari Seldon 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
At least lets show the consensus on the Guadalajara page so that other editors can revert his vandalism. Hari Seldon 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin America Economy

Alonso, I am sorry if I was misunderstood about my revision. I understand that all the information that was in the article was also covered by (i) the new CEPAL memorandum just released this week and that I included in the article or (ii) the table with figures about GNI, Gini index, etc. It seemed to me that, additionally, the CEPAL memorandum provided a bunch of new and valuable information about the subcontinent. Could you please kindly check again my revision and see it with new eyes, to confirm that all the information that was in the article was already in (i) my revision or the (ii) the table? If you find that something was missing, would agree to come back to my revision and add there the information that you think is convenient? Regards.--Diegou 12:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regiabeauty

I suspected as much! I will report him (her?) as well!

Hari Seldon 15:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covarrubias

I actually don't know him very much. I suspect he is a collaborator from Regioblogs who cheers for Rayados, but if it were true, his posts would be my only frame of reference. I don't think he would be likely of going against policy, but, as I said, I don't know him very well. If you want me to, I can help you out with any discussion you may be having. Hari Seldon 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been studying your claim and now see what you mean. I have also discarded my hypothesis that Covarrubias was the collaborator I though he was... Finally, if you want to make a sockpuppett accusation against him, I'd back it, for I can see your point.
BRIMCs (found in a Covarrubias edit)? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
Greetings! Hari Seldon 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I can't stand them either

Indeed, they are quite a nuisance (you forgot ravaeonphagha on the list of users we can't stand anymore)...

However, fighting them to elevate the quality of wikipedia is what will help us create a better wikipedia. I believe it is worth it. In any case, we are advancing, as it is clear that consensus is not in his favor. Hari Seldon 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

As requested, I have renamed you. You can now log in with your new username. Warofdreams talk 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Dúnadan, After I placed the photo of the Metropolitan Cathedral in the Landmarks section, I did a quick preview, but failed to scroll below the Landmarks section to see the mess I created. Thanks for straightening out that section. Best regards, User:Sba2

[edit] My mistake

I've listed my grievances in the Mexico City Talk Page. I am sorry for my edits. I didn't realize they were sourced. In journalism school we were taught to avoid adjectives, and this particular adjective bothered me a little too much, mostly because the reason behind that is a structural, centuries old, problem of government-centrism. That 25% of a nation's GDP is produced in one city (when the country has at least 150 other cities) is something to be frowned upon in my economic ideology. It is not good, and I did not like the positive connotation that the adjective "amazing" gave it. I would ask if it could be removed. Hari Seldon 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Corticopia

[edit] Corticopia's past

Hello:

I just want to share with you some information you might consider important. We had a very difficult time months ago removing Mexico from Central America in the article North America. Why? Because an "anonimous" user (IP from Toronto Canada) was reverting all the changes. I finally discovered he was an already registered user and got him blocked because of sockpuppetry. One month later, I found out he was already been accused of sockpuppetry with that account.

Well my point is that he is against of Mexico being included in North America. His main "argument" was that the UN geosheme includes Mexico in CA and that's it. He also denies that North America is also a subregion of America and ignores the cited content proving him wrong. Well, he is Corticopia. For months he was retired and trust me, NO BODY changed the articles North America and Central America (specially this one) to say Mexico was in CA.

Suddenly a "new" user shows up. He deleted a line in the article CA. It said "Mexico is rarely, yet sometimes included in Central America under certain definitions". This line was discussed and agreed. He changed it to "Mexico is included in Central America" then to "Mexico is sometimes included in Central America".

I don't know what his problem is. The important thing is I totally felt this is the same person we had a very serious vandalism problems months ago, so I checked his edit list. Wow! What a discovery, his first edit was the article Issac Asimov and articles about Canada and some other regions of the world. It was very obvious it was the same person. Please check this sources [1] and this [2]. Please, read them carefully.

Please check the contributions of each accused sockpuppetry account, specially the one of User:Ex post factoid. It is very obvious he is the same person.

He was dragged into the article Mexico when he was unable to "win" again in the article Central America (he didn't even try to change the article North America because he knows a lot of people guard that article). So his reason to say Mexico is in "Southern North America" are purely false and personal. He wants to "exclude" Mexico or make it "look" appart from Canda and the USA.

I'm telling you this because I think you don't realize his reasons are just personal, a personal aversion against Mexico being included in North America. If he's so interested in accuracy of the articles, why isn't he editing the article USA? He even asked Supaman to do it by himself. He's just there to exclude Mexico. Please read carefully the evidence provided in each sockpuppetry case. You said that you're an administrator in Spanish Wikipedia, so I think you're experienced in these cases. You will find it is the same person. Cortiopia has edited the same pattern of articles that the other accounts did. Too bad I warned him and I'm sure he stopped editing with that account to prevent being identified. I think we should stop him and prevent him from editing the article with his biased, excluding information, even if sourced, because his reasons are just personal and not for the sake of accuracy. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 06:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a note for you at Hari's talk page. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hola. I don't want to start a "fight" about something that happened in the past. I just want to say that if you felt offended by my words in the accusation, don't forget that you also "attacked" me. Perhaps in a more "sophisticated" way, but they were also attacks. If I say let's move on it was because I really meant it. I also want to apologize. All the evidence I checked by that time pointed to what you already know. Again, I'm sorry.
However, I don't think that users like Corticopia are good for Wikipedia, because all he is doing is promoting his own personal bias. Right now, he's engaged in (again) falsely trying to give the impression that Mexico is considered part of CA most of the times, which is false. Check North America. He included a citation that said that "in english NA also means US and Canada only". Well, that's right I already knew that! The problem is that he also included "and countries south of the US are in CA (Mexico or Nicaragua) or South America (Brazil, Argentina). That's a sourced reference, from Fowler's dictionary. However, even if sourced, it is misleading and I would say wrong, because there is enough evidence, referenced evidence, to prove Mexico is not often included in CA. My point (and I hope you can see it) is that he's only motivated to edit based on his bias and aversion against Mexico, that can't be good. Well, thanks for reading this and I hope we can really get over the past and start from zero. Gracias. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Really? Nor are you: in this debate, you were proved wrong and making claims that were proved to be false and again removing information. Beyond that, I've nothing further to add. Corticopia 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I can't and won't address AlexCovarrubias' commentary above at length, which is just one long-winded personal attack, predicated on the assumption that users worldwide may not share interests/perspectives and edit in a similar fashion. However, one thing is clear: he apparently side-steps the facts that my editions to the Mexico article and others are enhancements that have cited basis and are fairly neutral in viewpoint, while his are not. Shoot the messenger(s) and misrepresent the facts/history all you want, but that doesn't change the information presented.
Moreover, it appears that I am not the only who "can't stand" the impassioned, 'nationalistic', subjective grand-standing of AlexCovarrubias/Supaman. If I had to engage these instigating editors incessantly, I'd probably come and go too. If there should be a movement to ban users (and, despite accusations, note that the editors listed above are not apparently banned) -- given the verbose and perhaps obstructionist discussion surrounding recent editions to the Mexico article -- it should probably be to ban these two. Corticopia 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Mexico

Sorry: I didn't mean to cross paths regarding the technology statement, my edit merely concerned this ongoing morass regarding the introduction. Thanks. Corticopia 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help on 1st World article

Hi, this is Cali567 and I'm a relatively new user. I'm not sure where to ask you a question, so I'll ask you here. I recently became part of a very big undertaking in the First World article...haha...I seem to have made some enemies and I was wondering if you could help. The wiki users, especially seong9023 or something like that, have been tearing everyones edits apart. I only mentioned in the article that Argentina and Mexico have high HDI's, which they do in fact. These users won't even acknowledge this fact, and instead put down many Asian countries as examples. I wanted to be fair and put different countries as examples...and it went from there. Now I'm accused of being rascist. I do not have a lot of time on wikipedia, and I was wondering if you know anything about the standings of Mexico or Argentina as first world countries. If you do, I would ne pleased if you could contribute to the article. Again, I only put that they had high HDI's. I would appreciate your help in this, as I don't know too much about economics. Thank You in advance. ; ] Cali567 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Mexico

My comments are in for the article Economy of Mexico. I'd like to know what you think about what I posted in the talk page. I will start looking for sources in the morning. Hari Seldon 08:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] SOURCES

This is the main source http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/countries/mexico/mx-doc2.pdf others sources http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/92-2003-04-1-7294/PDF%5CA63.pdf http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/01/18/index.php?section=sociedad&article=045n1soc

the only problem is that i dont know how to add the sources in the text :p, could you add the sources please?


[edit] Religion

Kindly go to discussion in my user page Healkids 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case dismissed

Hi Dúnadan. I have not been active in Wikipedia for some weeks (and will not be for while) due to professional and personal reasons, and just today I found out that the fake sockpuppetry case filed by AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) was finally dismissed by an administrator. Congratulations for that. Cheers. --Diegou 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Etymology of Mexico

Hi there! That's fine: just qualify or mention somewhere the sole use of México in Mexico/Mexican Spanish as opposed to Spanish (this distinction is made in the English dictionary reference I added). And thank you for revamping the article. :) Corticopia 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the source is both relevant and accurate: after all, it is a common (American) English dictionary (from one family of products, the other being (British English) Oxford). My point: I just think it important to point out the universal usage of México in Mexican Spanish, as opposed to the entire language, though I'm unsure how to phrase it. :) Corticopia 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If only English had a similar institution ... thanks. And yes: I object to versions (1) and (2), while supporting (3) and (4). Corticopia 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Great: I've edited my contributions. It might also be wise to get a wider perspective/broader consensus and place a notice somewhere 'popular', like the VIllage Pump (I think)? Thanks again. Corticopia 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My vote(s) for the third option was an error and I've since corrected it. As for my preference RE (3) and (4), I will think about this s'morechange my opinion: it occurred to me that some sources indicate that Belize is not included in Central America, and 'Central America(n countries)' is a conciliation to those who must have that term in the intro. Thanks! Corticopia 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Mexico

Hey! I voted based on the options available, trying to be the most neutral and "precise", for me the rest of them are also not adequate, but I think the first one is the one that lies closer to reality. I think is easier to reach a consensus modifying the option I support than modifying the other ones. I've written already my opinion in the discussion.

Best regards Aldoman 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your research regarding Mexico -- it truly is both informative and appreciated. I particularly agree that the content from Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana is worthwhile. I thought about adding some content from other sources (some of which are already on the page) and I don't agree with all of your commentary, but I'm sure that this will be resolved successfully in the next day or so. Again, I prefer 'southern' to not (more precise), but support either and also adding much more detail in the 'Geography' subsection and 'Geography of Mexico' subarticle. I also find it curious that the instigating editor seems to have not commented. Anyhow, thanks again! Corticopia 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In retrospect, I got a little carried away regarding recent actions, so I apologize for my insistence -- I guess I have been on-edge since this sleigh-ride began over something so relatively minor. I still disagree with you somewhat on the interpretation of what consensus is regarding the poll results (perhaps my interpretation is broader than yours); nonetheless, I will add details to the 'geography' section and elsewhere with the goal of improving the article. Thanks again for mediating, and navigating through, this.  :) Corticopia 13:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. By the way, your vandalism revert seems (for the geography details) seems to have not taken.  :) Thanks. Corticopia 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Monterrey and Garza García

The picture could have easily been taken from the adjacent Torre Comercial América, which is almost as tall as the Torre CNCI (shown). The view of the Torre CNCI at middlepoint, which further indicate that the picture was in fact taken from Torre Comercial América. In fact, it isn't difficult to take a picture such as that if one knows enough about photography. I could have taken that picture myself. However, I understand your concern. If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that this picture was in copyright infringement, I have many other pictures about both Monterrey and Garza García to contribute. I am a little busy right now, since I work and also go to school. But as soon as I have some free time, I'll get current in some of the proactive projects in wikipedia, including the Economy of Mexico article, and a total re-do of the Garza García article, which is much needed. Hari Seldon 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Economy of Mexico (comments in my talk page)

Thank you for your comments about my blog! I can tell you that it is not as well mantained as I wish it was, but this is because I am getting more busy as I am getting older :(

I am overwhelmed with exams and project reports at the moment, but will contribute in the measure of my time possibilities. I am also working on the Cristero War article. I am researching some things and will be adding information soon. By the way, what do you think of the recently created (by me) article Gruma?

About the discussion on how to proceed with the nomenclature issues, I am still unsure what to respond. On one part, I do not know if I am letting my regionalism cloud my judgement with this issue (for I feel stronly about Monterey). On the other hand, I am in an environment in which everytime people talk about Monterrey, they mean the metro area. "I went to Monterrey to do some business with Cemex", (Cemex is HQed in San Pedro)... "Hersheys is opening a plant in Monterrey" (The plant is being opened in Apodaca), "I am going to the Tecnológico de Monterrey EGADE campus in Monterrey"... For all practical purposes, anyone who talks about Monterrey refers to the metro area.

So I don't know. Your arguments seem solid, but on the other hand, I feel that it is, indeed, a matter of taste. People talk about "Monterrey", and about "Mexico City" in general, and not about the official limits of the city itself. That is why i propose a vote. I think that, at least for me, I have too much emotion and bias to make any decision. If there were a neutral opinion, or a vote, I would feel more comfortable with that.

Hari Seldon 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read your arguments, and I find them 100% valid and accurate. I have not responded because I do not know what to respond. I also feel that my arguments have sufficient grounds.
But precisely because I am partial, I would rather have someone else participate. A "neutral" judge if you will. I would rather not participate in this debate anymore. Whatever decision is taken, I will respect it. But I cannot make the decision myself.
However, because the issue is going to be a heated one, I would suggest you don't go ahead in making a determination by yourself. Invite others, at least, someone else, to participate. Perhaps an editor in Project:Cities?
By the way, I've recently created Gruma and did some minor updates on Gamesa.
I was thinking of creating a Monterrey Portal, and, why not?, a Mexico City Portal and a Guadalajara Portal. I think that there is sufficient articles, information, and interesting things about these cities to make portals about them. Don't you?
Hari Seldon 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I would love to participate in all of that! But currently, I am quite busy with school. Lets see how things develop. Hari Seldon 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

WTF, dude, I never agreed to say that it was in Middle America, that option wasn't even in the poll that you made, I agreed to say that it was in southern North America, and I'm respecting that, but honestly I don't get what your obsession is with excluding Mexico from the same region as Canada and the States. Supaman89 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No man, what pisses me off so much is the fact that we never talked about "Middle America". About the "Group of Nations" thing, don't you see that you're offending a whole country, any Mexican that see that will think "Oh there it is once again, Gringos trying to exclude us from NA, using all kinds of terms just to put us apart", why isn't there a "Middle South America", or "Northern South America", I'll tell you why, because South Americans don't create sub-regions just to exclude each other. Anyways, just forget about it, hope you enjoy Wikipedia. Supaman89 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle America (disambiguation), Middle America (North America) and Middle America (Americas)

Sorry for disturbing you with with another foolish edit war, but the Middle America is on the table again. During the last 24 hrs each article was already reverted 3 times by user Corticopia and by my self. I request for a consensus to end this silly discussion, see Talk:Middle America (North America). JC Febraury 27 2007, 11:30 (PST)

Hi! Thanks for weighing in -- you might need to clarify what you mean by 'horrible'. I don't necessarily disagree but there's been so much chat, so little patience. :) Corticopia 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Mexico

are the links that I posted wrong? you know about the growth of the economy of Mexico, i havent seen any change in the Economy of Mexico... –Mexxxicano 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of Mexico, Mexico article and Maps

I hope you don't mind. Corticopia and I have modified the article Geography of Mexico following a concensus about the different existent subdivisions of the Americas (North, Central, South; Northern, Middle, South). I edited the geography section in Mexico to be consistant with the changes in the other article. I also would like to invite you to expand the article I just created North America (Americas). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

About Fundidora Park pic, don't you think the new one looks better? It has more quality and more vibrant colors. If you upload a new version of a pic, a copy of the previous version is kept. There is always the chance to revert it. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Told you about the pics. I think I get what you want. I have some other pictures of the Fundidora facilities that looks more "industrial". I don't know if you are aware that Fundidora is no longer active. The whole site was turned into a park, and all the remaining industrial buildings are fully surrounded by huge green areas. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am in Monterrey. I think I have some pictures about industrial facilities I'll check my files. If not, I will go photo-hunting this weekend. :P AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! I enojoy creating graphics a lot! By the way, the sentence should say "Countries that Mexico has signed a FTA with". AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, just tell me what you need and I'll create it. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geopolitics

I would like to ask your help please. I know this may not be of your interest but I think it is necessary that you read it. Please see the discussion in Talk:Americas (terminology). Remember how Corticopia used to concede that geopolitically Mexico is not included in CA? He used that argument in order to include in the article that part of Mexico (physiographically, geologically he wrote) is within the region. Well, now that we are correcting this particular article, he says that is not true (anymore). He always try to confuse the terms, to include Mexico in Central America. I know how you feel about it, you say there's nothing wrong with it, but I think that Wikipedia must be accurate.

My arguments are simple. There are geopolitical regions in the Americas (a thing that he later denied in the debate). I added some references about what geopolitics are (I am very interested in politics and he seems not to know much about the topic). Those regions are very easy to identificate: North America (Can, US, Mex or also Can-US), Central America, the Caribbean and South America. He tries to include Middle America as a geopolitical region, or to include Mexico in CA. I want to point out that I have been neutral, I even conceded him with the reason in other articles (Middle America (Americas)).

As you may know, geopolitic areas are integrated by countries mainly due to their economical, political relations (militar, security issues are sometimes considered). For example, CA has a supranational political body, the Central American Parliament in which Mexico was never intended to be part of. Also, the economic integration between CA is quite obvious. More importantly, neither CA or Mexicans consider the latter a CA country. The same thing happens in the Caribbean, they have strong ties economically (CARICOM) and they even have political agreements to vote in block in the OAS and in the UN. Mexico and Central America don't have that kind of political or economical relations/cooperations, nor Mexico and the Caribbean.

Meanwhile, Canada, the US and Mexico do (NAFTA, SPP), and their economical and political relations are far more deep than the ones Mexico and CA present (Mexican Congressists and Canadian Parliament meet annualy, for example). In the last 12 years, those relations were deepened and it is well known that the three countries are looking for further integration by homogenizing laws.

When Corticopia felt he had no argument against my arguments (that Mexico is geopolitically not in CA), he "decided" to change the title of the subsection from "Geopolitical regions" to "Human Geography", so according to him, he could add Mexico in CA.

I honestly believe that at some point the article reached a NPOV [3] with all the possible terminology included, but I guess he was not happy with the mention of Mexico being geopolitically linked to North America, instead of CA (or alternately Middle America). I'm desperate, I don't know what to do. He just won't listen to the arguments, and when the arguments overwhelm him, he decided to change the structure of the article (please! read the talk page and see the history of the article). The geopolitics section was there since the article was created. It falsely used the UN geosheme, but the UN states that scheme is for statistical purposes only and that it does not imply any political membership to any area. So I created a separate section for the UN geoscheme.

Please, I need your opinion. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dúnadan. I just wanted to say that I'm kinda sad/surprised about your comment in which you say that I look for sources to "push a POV". I certainly don't, I honestly don't. All of the edit warring problems I've been recently involved in, are caused because of a lack of neutrality in the way a certain user edits the articles in which Mexico is involved. What I'm saying is basicly what you objected in the disambiguation of Mesoamerica: the most prevalent/used information should be used and must be given the proper weight in the article, accordingly with the evidence. For example, it is not the same to say "Mexico is a CA country" than specificly say "12.XX% of Mexico in physiographically in the CA region". In the same way, I find it very POV to describe Mexico as being located in "Middle America" instead of the most extended used geographical description of "Mexico is in North America". I'm never opposed of including the other possibilities when they are true, it is just a matter of giving each term the real weight it has in a particular article. Thanks for reading. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for your condolences Dúnadan, I appreciate it. I need to go so I will be quick. I think it is appropiate the use of the qualifier because the use of "Middle America" as a translation for Mesoamérica is very rare. I deleted the qualifier because it said "rarely a synonim of Mesoamerica", I deleted "rarely a synonim" [4]. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, AC(not D): the intro to Mexico describes it is in North America, and the geography section/article elaborates duly with all options. If one thinks that it is subjective and effectively backtracks on prior agreement, given the current situation, one must re-evaluate the motives of the actors involved ... including oneself. Corticopia 18:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North America (Americas)

Guess what? Corticopia decided to nominate this article for deletion, saying that it should be just mentionated in the North America article and calling it a POV forking. Well, as you know he's a great promotor of the term Middle America (Americas), that includes Mexico, CA and the Caribbean, all parts of North America (continent). So it is really incongruent that he wants to delete this article and keep Middle America. Can you please see this and vote? I think he's gone too far. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AC: I think YOU have gone too far. As I've stated there, there is a key difference -- the content regarding the sub/regions of Northern America (which is not merely a UN construct; see article) and Middle America (numerous definitions provided) are well sourced, while that of the 'region' of North America isn't. This doesn't deny other continental models, but no sources have been provided that clearly delineate what the model upon which the nominated article is based. The sources in North America (Americas) do not support the content in that article, and a read of those sources will reveal that. Regardless, if necessary, applicable content can be added to the North America article instead of forking and conflating the issue. Sorry to use your talk page, D. Corticopia 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Middle America/Mesoamerica

What I meant by 'stand corrected' is that I apologize regarding the POV statement.

Look, we're not in disagreement about the prevalence etc. about the terms, but when common publications (like the OED and Britannica) refer to Meso-America (infrequently) as not just the cultural area and, in the case of the latter, synonymous with Middle America, different perspectives must be given due weight. The Britannica ref is also not the only indication of this (which my prior link there indicated), yet you add a 'fact check' note. In the disambiguation, aren't entries supposed to be listed in order of prevalence? Mesoamerica is currently listed last. I have no true objection regarding the use of 'infrequently' in the DAB, but AC simplified it that way; if we say it's that, why must we reference it when it links to referenced articles which elaborate? Anyhow, if you wish to not get involved in sterile discussions (and I concur), that's your prerogative, but please read comments/citations beforehand. Thanks. Corticopia 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North America

References need to be provided in articles - merely explaining where one might find some in your edit summary is insufficient. Any reader needs to be able to find the attribution for any information where appropriate. Things that are easily verified aren't always referenced, but form something like what you added, which isn't, a specific reference needs to be added. If there are references in Talk:Mexico, then dig them up and use them to cite what you want to add. Otherwise, editors are forced to revert per WP:A. WilyD 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: North America > comments/apology

Thanks for your comments. I believe this is simply just another misunderstanding between you and I. I was not referring to your edits as being a rigmarole per se -- this was a general statement, given our and other (sometimes circular) edits/argument to the various articles concerning the Americas -- and appreciate your efforts to research and round out content. Nor was I being dismissive of your edits but (as you gather) precision is desired regarding these notions ... even if the notions are imprecise. Adding content that's merely 'implicit' complicates the issue for everyone. And when you refer to a term as 'confused and meaningless,' that does add fuel to a smouldering fire and can be perceived as being beligerent, but I will and do retract any potentially inflammatory comments to foster amity and also apologise if I 'popped off'. Corticopia 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. The rigmarole I was referring to particularly refers to other editors and other articles about the Americas where there are ongoing challenges which I am also 'tiring' of (you can probably guess who and what) -- you just happened to get involved in it too (hence my use of per se, which was not in reference to your edits/contributions), and I appreciate your willingness to equilibrate everything. :) Corticopia 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Countries and Territories in North America article

Hello Dúnadan. For months, the definition of CA starting in at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and Mexico frequently not being considered in the region, was presented just as a footnote. In the main paragraph of the subarticle "Countries and Territories", it only explained that Mexico is in CA according to the United Nations geoscheme, but didn't mention that Mexico is frequently not considered in the CA region, which is fully supported by most of the sources.

I think it is appropiate to move that information to the first paragraph, in which the "definition" of Central America is treated. I basicly copy-edited the information. However, I'm not sure if I did it right. Could you please check the wording? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Errmmhh... somebody deleted your notation in the usage of NA section. Also, there is a "new" edit war. Please, take a look because it seems people listens to you. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, check the new clickable map. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Mexico

Noted. I took a look and I didn't see such problem. Then I thought that you may be using Firefox or another browser. You were right. The problem only exist to Firefox users, I personally use IE so I never saw that problem. I will try to solve it. Thanks for the warning! AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it. I have both IE 6.X and Firefox 2.0.0.2 (latest version), but I personally use IE. It is surprising that IE 7 have the same problem. Mmhh. I don't think it has to do with screen resolution. I personally use 1280 x 1024 (LCD 17" native resolution), but I also check how it looks on 1024x768 and 800x600 (remember I'm a webdesigner :P). What's your resolution? I think 1024 because that's nowadays most common SR. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the problem solved for IE7? Can you please check? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial evolution of Mexico

Thanks for the comments. Due to lack of sources, I figured the best way to improve it was to just throw it to the wolves.

In re your comment on Soconusco, I think the list and map adequately reflect that, can you point out where it is wrong? The map begins with the 1824 constitution mainly because, I do believe, the lines were completely redrawn then, and I didn't have that information.

The Republic of the Rio Grande ... yeah, I can see that, perhaps I should color that region in the 'disputed' color. I never saw anything about Zacatecas declaring independence, though, I should find that... According to our article, it revolted during the Porfiriato, did you get mixed up, or did it also revolt under Santa Anna?

As for the Republic of Yucatan, what I gleaned from our articles is that it voted for independence once, but held off on actually doing it because they got a reassurance from Santa Anna that he would stop screwing things up. When it was clear he'd gone back on this promise, they finally went independent, both de jure and de facto. Is this incorrect?

Please let me know any other comments or corrections you have. :) Once I got outside the Anglosphere (my first three works were Canada, Australia, and the USA) this got a lot harder; Mexico fortunately never did a major redrawing of borders (after 1824). I'm working on Brazil now and it's getting a lot harder, there's very few sources that aren't in Portuguese. --Golbez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle America

Hi Dúnadan. Remember the debate we had with Corticopia in Talk:Americas (terminology)? If you don't, please read it. We were demonstrating Mexico is part of North America geopolitically, while the regions of CA and the Caribbean constitute separate geopolitical regions on their own. Middle America is not a geopolitical region, since the political/economical integration and interdependecy between the three constituents of the regions is practically non existent. CA nations are going trough a phase of political and economical integration, that is deepening. The same happens with the Caribbean, that is already very integrated geopolitically. Such integration is not observed between Mex, CA and Caribbean. On the other hand, Mexico, the US and Canada are going trough a separate process of political/economical integration, thus, they are a geopolitical separate region.

I understand your concern about the term MA not being completely well defined as a geographical term. However, it was mainly coined as a geographical/cultural term. I think that when you were using the term "geopolitical" about MA, you actually wanted to mean the term was defined based in the political division of the region: Mexico, CA and the Caribbean. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Also, I think when you read the discussion in the Mexico talk, you'll see what I'm concerned about.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I thought, you were using the term to mean "geolocalization of political entities". I'm a student of Political Science and Public Administration at the UANL here in Monterrey. Geopolitics regions are easily distinctive in the continents due to the basicly 2 factors: economical, political integration. Some authors consider other factors such as the military cooperation, coordinated foreign policy and more recently "antiterrorist strategies".
Given the above, it is very hard to sustain "Middle America" is a geopolitical region, due to the fact that it lacks everything to be one between the member countries. Such geopolitical integration and relations of interdepencency are evidently present within Central America and within the Caribbean.
We have to be very carefully to not confuse the multiple randomly selected geopolitical areas that some authors write about in book. As I have said, one researcher can select a set of countries in a given geographic area and conduct a economic/political (geopolitical) study. That's the case of the article Corticopia pasted in the discussion, where Middle America is not considered as containing Mexico, but only the Caribbean and CA. On the contrary, it located Mexico in North America and directly defined the area as exclusively containing Canada, Mexico and the United States ("Yet, seven additional shatterbelts surfaced in North America (Canada, Mexico, and the United States[...]" [5]). So, I guess that article can, in fact, be a reference to North America being defined as Can, Mex and the US. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Middle America, et al.

Hello! I hope you're well. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for my brusqueness in our recent discussions. As you can imagine, I have been rather frustrated not by you but by whom I perceive as being the instigator of this; the lengthy discussions have merely added to that and have seemed rather intractable. Anyhow, rest assured that I will continue my research and to source relevant notions regarding MA, so that we can reputably round out content. -- quite frankly, I haven't had time yet (given chats to date) to research anything about it at the libraries. Corticopia 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: North America

Hello. I am merely pointing out that we are making judgements -- value and otherwise -- on this and other topics based on relative prevalence in source matter. Plenty more (academic and otherwise) may indicate or imply something different (e.g., more inclusive) about North America. Explicit notations and sources regarding usage of that term are limited (in the discussions about North America) to the sources I listed ... and other points of view (while obvious to some) may not be obvious to others. And the issue regarding Mesoamerica and Middle America is somewhat different -- they are both regions in the middle portion of the Americas, perhaps related and non-contraversial. Corticopia 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valencia (autonomous community)

Hi, I noticed you tag yourself as an English native speaker, so I guess you could help us in the Valencia (autonomous community) article, where the use of English names is being debated.

There's also the typical discussion regarding politics. The term País Valencià is not acceptable for some people so they want to erase it. At first they said it wasn't official, when we proved it is, they moved to another excuse: Now they argue that there is no fitting translation into English. We have pointed at Land of Valencia and Valencian Country (both used in several English webpages or by native English speakers in their books). My English skills are not good enough to realize if they are bad English or not, but I proposed to translate the Spanish and Catalan articles es:Denominaciones de la Comunidad Valenciana and ca:Denominacions del País Valencià.

Do you think you could take a look and say anything profitable? Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, it is always good to get a new point of view! I would be greatful if you could place the page on your watch list for the time being, as there are several ongoing disputes which might benefit from some more mediation. Physchim62 (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thx a lot for your aricle Names of the Valencian Community!
The problem with Valencia (autonomous community) was mainly the "Names' war" we Valencians seem to be condemned to since the 1970s. Just take a look to the never-ending blaverist vandalims!
I hope that, by writing the article about the names, we all feel our respective POV are explained and nobody tries to push his truth over others.
Moltes gràcies de bell nou!  :) --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: New articles

Hi, Dunadan, I hadn't had time to see the articles about Mexico's Demographics and Politics until now. As usual, your work is of the highest quality. However, when it comes to Politics of Mexico, I think we could expand it by adding about the influence of media, NGOs, and of the International environment in Mexico. Perhaps a subsection of "other actors"? Unfortunately, I will be very busy with other work to make any contribution of significant value to wikipedia in the next few weeks. I hope you beat me to it, but if you don't, I will start researching about this in the next month or so. Greetings! Hari Seldon 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] País Valencià

Hola Alonso! en primer lloc et vull felicitar per l'article que has fet sobre les denominacions del País Valencià. Queda tot molt ben explicat i, a més, força documentat.

Sobre la discussió que hi ha ara mateix, creia que era poc factible poder incloure altres noms a la introducció de l'article, però després de les teves intervencions veig que es pot fer. Potser l'he vessada al dir que em semblava bé la proposta d'en Physchim62... Sort que hi has intervingut perquè en general hi ha molta tossuderia.

No sé si has vist que tampoc accepten que a la taula d'informació només hi hagi el nom oficial (com en qualsevol article d'un territori). Què en penses? --PmmolletTalk 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelota tarasca

I dare to ask you about the Pelota tarasca Mexican handball.

I play Valencian pilota, and my main reason to be in the wp was explaining this traditional game.

Valencian professional (and some Llargues variant amateurs) are chosen every summer to play Handball International Championships, where many European and American countries play their respective handball variants and the International game, a game created to share the common traits among all.

Mexican pilotaris played in the 1996, 2000 and 2004, and brought their own variant, the Pelota tarasca.

Do you happen to know anything about it? Thx in advance! Gràcies a la bestreta! --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/%C3%BA/n/User_talk%7ED%C3%BAnadan_42ed.html"