User talk:Hseldon10/Archive Mex3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Monterrey

I see you're in a small conflict with User:Raveonpraghga on this page. I don't really have any opinion on the issue of the relative importance of cities in Mexico, however I do feel strongly that all such statements should be sourced. (see WP:RS) It does seem to me however that two cities could claim this distinction and the matter could never be fully resolved -- its all so vague. I do want to caution you both however, not to break the three revert rule. You haven't so far, but you might just want to keep that in mind. In the grand scheme of things, its a small matter, and it would be a shame to let it explode into something bigger. Cheers. Dina 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second city

Hello Hari: I'm aware of the things going on specially with those two Argentinan users. One of them "J.Alonso" is editing the article Monterrey just as a reaction of my accusation of him incurring in sockpuppetry. Can you tell me who threatened with the IP ban? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. He cannot ban your IP, that's stupid. He is not even an administrator. The only thing he could do is "report" you for the "three reverts rule". However I reverted the information you provided because it is verifiable and properly sourced, so there's no reason for him to revert it. If you want I can give you my e-mail address so we can contact over there. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hari. I've seen that you and Alex reverted the controversial statement about Monterrey being the "second city" of Mexico. Unfortunately, Alex took it as a "personal attack" from my part, which is far from true, given that I am not even Argentine, but Mexican (and before you accuse me of joining hands with Raveonpraghga, not even from Guadalajara). I was actually engaged in an unfortunate and unprofitable discussion with Raveonpraghga because he insisted on claiming that Guadalajara was the "second most important city". It is not that I think that Monterrey should "have the title". But, like Dina, I don't agree with its vagueness and ambiguity. For me, subjective titles, based on our own reasoning and perception are far from encyclopedic or rigorously academic. If someone says "Monterrey outranked Guadalajara decades ago" this statement is not only debatable, but unsourced.
Let me try to explain what I am trying to say, in the same way I tried to explain Alex. In the argument I had with Raveonpraghga I contested his statement (that Guadalajara is the second most important city) because of its vagueness. Guadalajara could well be the second most populated conurbation and perhaps the second most important cultural city in the country (given their numerous and renown cultural and artistic conferences it hosts). Yet, it is not the second most important industrial city (that is Monterrey) nor the second most important in economic size (that "honor" belongs neither to Monterrey nor to Guadalajara, but to Garza-García as measured by GDP per capita, even if it is part of the metro area of Monterrey). Moreover, Guadalajara is definitely not the second most important tourist center (as it had been claimed) but Cancun and even though it is home to very important universities, the city with the greatest number of universities in Mexico, outside of Mexico City is Puebla, which is, arguably, the second most important educational hub (I am not talking about "quality" or ranking, which obviously belongs to ITESM, but of number of out-of-state students).
I think that by now you get a glimpse of what I am trying to say. Monterey undoubtedly is the second most important city in many aspects, but not all, and given that Guadalajara and Monterrey are in many standards "second", the issue will not be solved by "our perceptions" nor by trying to provide a list of "characteristics" in which we can prove that one city is "the second", because, on the other hand, you will find a list of "characteristics" in which the former outranks the latter, and the discussion will never end. That is why, in that particular discussion in the Spanish wikipedia with Raveonpraghga, as well as in this discussion about Monterrey, and for the sake of academic and encyclopedic rigor, it is better to say that which is true and unarguable. In other words, it is better to go to specifics, for example: Monterrey is the tenth most populated municipality though its metropolitan area is the third most populated; it is the second most important industrial hub in the country (as measured by industrial GDP), the first city ranked in entrepreneurship (above Mexico City, based on America Economia), and is home to the most important private university in Latin America (based on whatever ranking).
I don't think you will find a source that explicitly states that Monterrey is the second most important city in Mexico (ambiguous), yet, I have found (unfortunately, because I still oppose their ambiguity) sources that state that Guadalajara is the second city in the country. In either case, both claims are subjective, based on "which characteristics" we choose to consider (arbitrary) and which we try to overlook. I guess if a source can be found, a statement like "John Smith, an expert in demography and economics states that Monterrey is the second most important city".
Do let me know what you think, and I invite you, like I did Alex, to participate constructively on the debates by providing sources and being open to new approaches to the same issue.
Cheers, --Alonso 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Great!! Thanks for your response! Even though I think convincing Raveonpraghga of deleting that statement from Guadalajara's article will prove to be quite a challenging task. He also accused me of vandalism in the Spanish wiki, and in fact vandalized my own User page, and even "threatened" of blocking my account (a silly threat since we was a new user). I resorted to asking an admin to semiprotect the article, which of course, didn't prevent him, as a registered user, of editing the article at will. Even if in the short-run, he doesn't agree to eliminate the statement and re-inserts it, I would think it would be wise to show our commitment to academic honesty (and a little Wikipedian etiquette) if we do our part eliminating the statement from the Monterrey article while we continue to demand the same thing from the Guadalajara article. --Alonso 03:16, 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] Second City

Hey man, guess what I just found out. Regiabeauty is none other than Raveonpraghga. I began to suspect, like you, that he (she?) was the same guy since he was making the same grammar and spelling mistakes, and the fact that the arguments were pretty much similar. Anyway, the first edit under the name "Regiabeauty" was done by the anonymous IP address: 68.229.63.236 [1]. Then he created the account User:Regiabeauty and began posting with that name. Yet, if you click on the contributions of 68.229.63.236, you will find that he introduced himself to Dina, on his very first intervention as Roberto Maya [2], and then as Robert Mayan (since he is probably using an automatic translator!), which happens to be real name of User:Raveonpraghga as it can be attested in his same user page. This same 68.229.63.236 also edited Raveonpraghga's User Page adding his personal information [3]. And, he couldn't have been more obvious, without logging in, and using IP 68.229.63.236 again he signed explicitly as Raveonpraghga in here and here. I am reporting him at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. Please feel free to participate in the discussion that will follow. --Alonso 06:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITESM citations

Hey, I was looking at the official ITESM site and can't find the 99% part, can you point me to were you found it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solid Reign (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

So, should I remove it? I tried searching with google for this, however all I could find is in the mission statement a remark like "Professors should have a higher degree than what they teach." However, I think this is from the 2005 mission statement. The same goes for the research part, I can't find anything that says it's a great part of what they're trying to accomplish. So, should they stay or should they go? Solid Reign 14:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Plaza Fiesta San Agustín Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Plaza Fiesta San Agustín Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)