|
User talk:08OceanBeach SD/Archive 2
North America tableExcuse me.... we were discussing how to make the table smaller and you added a new whole table!! That's not helpful at all cause we wanted to save space now we have 2 super big tables!! Problem solved? I don't think so!! Now it is worst!!! Please comment in talk page. I loved your table design it looks so neat Regions of MexicoHello Ocean good afternoon. Baja is not a cardinal region of Mexico. Both states Baja California and Baja California Sur are part of the "Zona Noroeste" (Northwest zone) grouping. The region "Península de Baja California" is an ecological region but not a cardinal one. It is already included in the list under ecoregions. I hope you noticed there are several articles about this common Mexican regions and also a map showing them. I leave this message because I don't want you to believe I'm reverting only "because". In fact I didn't know what to do because I didn't want you to believe I was being agressive or something. It just happen that there's no cardinal region named baja. Oh by the way, I have replied to the message your left at my talk page. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
new catNice work on the new cat for Southern Border Region (California). Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Hello again Ocean! I'm a little confused about this edit [1]. I'm not sure if you had the time to read the article Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America which was linked to in the subsection "toponomy of North America". I'm confused because I see no reason to add a citation needed tag due to the fact that the article about the Solment Act is sourced. I see no reason to cast doubt about this adding a CN tag. Sometimes it is not needed to add an inline citation if the article linked is well sourced. This helps mantain a good article size (in KB). AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to create BRICSHi again. Several weeks ago we had two almost identical articles about BRIC and BRICS. Some users created BRICS when South Africa was included, they even moved BRIC to BRICS but it was reverted because it was a content fork since BRIC is a financial accronym and BRICS is basically a political group. Some of the users that were interested in this topic seem to have taken a break or maybe they are just not interested anymore, but I think that BRICS deserves its own article. Right now BRICS redirects to BRIC which is too bad for South Africa. I've started a converstaion at Talk:BRIC to try to decide what information the new article should have and avoid being erased again as a content fork. Would you be interested in helping? If you are, please join the talk. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Latin AmericaI'm highly dissapointed [2] because of this. You already know the policy about controversial changes, it goes likes "disscus first and change later". It's not like you make a change and then ask others to discuss it because it breaks the stability of a page. It's considered disruptive. But what I find more problematic is that you have never edited there and then I edit there and then you arrive... harassment again? I thought you were going to be friendly and supportive. I really thought you were gonna be like that. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Arden-ArcadeStop moving it to an unofficial name. The census defines a CDP of Arden-Arcade (hyphenated). If you want to write an article about some amorphous territory that isn't the CDP, feel free to do so, but a CDP article will exist at Arden-Arcade and all census related data will be removed from the unhyphenated article. And as to consensus, 2 people does not a consensus make to override our policy on geographic names to use the OFFICIAL name, even if 2 people said to rename Los Angeles to LA, we'd keep it at Los Angeles, per policy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Monterrey buildings articleHello Ocean, are you still considering creating an article about Monterrey buildings? AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 10:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I've begun the article. I could use some help obtaining images of the buildings and finding sources would be helpful. Thanks for your assistance! 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Baja California projectHi there, thanks for the invite to the Tijuana project, I'd be more interested to participate in a Baja California project, rather than just a TJ one. BTW do u have info about the boroughs of Tecate and Playas de Rosarito municipalities. Cheers --Jcmenal (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of ING Commercial America Building (Tijuana) for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ING Commercial America Building (Tijuana) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ING Commercial America Building (Tijuana) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shadowjams (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC) August 2011 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Global city. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)  {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 08OceanBeach SD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I was restoring the proper list as presented by GaWC in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Editing policy as the changes had not been properly discussed upon. The original discussion began here, where one user disagreed with the changes being made, before User:AlexCovarrubias began another. The same user who began another discussion had previously acknowledged that controversial changes should be discussed before controversial changes were made. I had produced quotes from GaWC acknowledging the organization within their Alpha-Beta-Gamma system and have repeatedly shown that the list order complies with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, though those comments were seemingly ignored. I strongly believe in discussion as my talk page contributions will show and believe this block will prevent me from taking part in any discussion that would better Wikipedia articles. After receiving the 3RR warning I waited the 24 hour period. My edit summaries repeatedly stated to respect discussion in hopes that a proper consensus could be reached. Seeing as I have complied with Wikipedia's policy I find my block shocking though believe an easy way to prevent this in the future will be to simply discuss controversial changes before making any changes until consensus has indeed been obtained. 08OceanBeachS.D. 03:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: You were indeed edit warring and this block was warranted: the fact you believe you were right is not an exemption and, per WP:3RR, [a]ny appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. My advice, if you wish to be unblocked, would be to convince the reviewing admin that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to edit war and will discuss things instead. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.  08OceanBeach SD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have thoroughly read the WP:3RR policy and realize I was missing out on key information that was previously unbeknownst to me: whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time. I apologize for taking part in action, that according to Wikipedia, is gaming the system. I understand that my reversions only caused disruption to the respective article and that taking such action is never warranted. In the future, before taking any reversion action, except in the case of blatant vandalism or other exemptions to the 3RR, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I will take things to the talk page immediately rather than reverting and prevent future page disruption. I sincerely apologize for engaging in disruptive behavior and take this as my call to never do it again. Cordially, 08OceanBeachS.D. 17:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Accept reason: Best unblock request ever. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Tijuana second most visited city in the Western hemisphere?This edit to Tijuana that you made states that it's "the second most visited city in the Western hemisphere". I find this hard to believe, given that:
You made numerous edits to the article, so I will AGF and hope for a better reference, or removal of that hard to believe claim. -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 09:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
|
