User talk:Jcmenal/Archive 2007

Reverted Geography in Mexico edits

Your changes to the Geography section have been reverted. While you indeed provide sources for your claims, this issue has been extensively discussed, an poll was opened, after which it was 'consensually agreed to simply state that Mexico is in North America in the introductory paragraph, and then be as detailed and specific by providing all altenrative definitions of MA, CA and NA in the Geography section (by providing all we achieve WP:NPOV, by selecting only one, even if referenced and common, the section becomes WP:POV).

Also, please note that the page was fully protected (to all users) for over 10 days because of an edit war between Alex, Supaman and Corticopia; these users temporarily blocked for engagin in WP:3RR on that occassion. Administrators unprotected the page becase we had reached a civilized consensus, which you can read at Talk:Mexico. If you disagree with the consensus, you are entitled to reopen the discussion, but do not edit the conensual version until it has been agreed to do so. If you edit without discussing, you might re-start an edit-war, the page will be fully protected again, and the article will, nonetheless, be restored to the previous consensus until a new consensus is reached (if it is reached), hindering the improvement of the article in other non-controversial areas.

Thank you for your cooperation, --theDúnadan 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America (Americas)

Hello JC. Corticopia nominó para borrado el artículo recién creado de North America como una región argumentando que representa un punto de vista parcial. Continúa diciendo que debería simplemente ser agregado al ya existente artículo de North America (continente). ¿Podrías por favor votar? puesto que es una votación para saber si se queda o si es borrado. North America (Americas). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America (Americas) delete review

Thanks for voting and expressing your opinion about the article North America (Americas). As you know the debate was closed, and the result was "to delete it". Since I, as the creator of the article, thought the decision was hasty and wrong, I opened a to review the deletion.

This mean that administrators and regular editors can vote again and, most importantly, argument why the decision was wrong or right. Please, take a look at this and express your opinion:

Thanks for your time reading this message. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America

The - uh - page you linked to in your edit summary [1] does not - uh - exist. This may weaken your argument. WilyD 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've explained on Talk:North America#Norteamérica -- subcontinente? why I've removed that small reference about the English speaking world. It's perfectly reasonable to note that this usage is common in Latin America, but it's just not used by English language reliable sources. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Colonet, Baja California

I'm glad you noticed the page and made a few editorial changes. I still plan on expanding the labor section, but the rest is pretty much done now. I think it would be a great addition to the [es.wikipedia.org Spanish Wikipedia] to translate this page. Kgrr 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

States of Mexico

I have seen some maps list the northern portion of the Baja peninsula as Baja California and others refer to it as Baja California Norte. Is there an official mexican state map online from the Mexican government that clears this up for those of us writing articles which refer to Mexico? Thegreatdr 18:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California Norte

Hi Jcmenal! While I appreciate your efforts to improve the accuracy of certain rattlesnake articles my making sure that they refer to valid names of Mexican states, I don't see that there's anything wrong with mentioning or linking to "Baja California Norte." First of all, I'm just being faithful to the sources that I cite from, and second, the redirect (if used) always takes readers to the right place: the state of Baja California." In addition, the type localities mentioned in the articles are almost always from the original description of the animal and cannot be changed (even if they're completely wrong). (PS -- If you'd like to respond, you can do so here, as I've temporarily got your talk page on my watch list.) --Jwinius 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jwinius!. Well, I changed more than 100 articles related with "Baja California", not just rattlesnake articles. Sadly as I said to another user, the usage of Baja California Norte is so extended, even by many mexicans (a few bajacalifornians included). If you google "Baja California Norte" you will find houndreds of related links, but this doesnt make it right. Wikipedia could be the best site to find the correct information about Baja California. --JC 14:05, 22 July 2007 (PST)
I'm glad that you think Wikipedia is a good place to find correct information about Baja California, but as the article states, Norte is sometimes used to help distinguish the state from the rest of the peninsula. That's why my books use Norte, so it's no typo. Like so many before me, when I discovered that the peninsula was divided into two states, I found their names confusing as well, so I can understand why the authors wrote the books the way they did. Once again, my only wish to quote the original text accurately, and I even linked to the correct article name, so I'd be grateful to you if you could please leave the text the way I had it. --Jwinius 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now why do you think I would be under the mistaken impression that you're on an irrational crusade to wipe out all mentionings of Baja California Norte at Wikipedia, except (perhaps) for the one in the Baja California article itself? It shouldn't be illegal for us to use the term -- or even "Baja California (Norte)" -- if all we want is to make sure readers don't think we're referring to the entire peninsula; there's even a redirect for it that takes you to the correct article. --Jwinius 08:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be your impression, I'm trying to fix the Wikipedia mentions of my home state. The use of the term is not illegal, just incorrect, the use of "Baja California (Norte)" is a clear reference to the state's wrong name, I'm not agaisnt about the use of "Baja California (state/estado)". BTW the use of "Baja California Norte" in the Mexican Tax system is not legal. We have three places named Baja California: 1)Baja California peninsula, 2)Baja California (state), 3)Baja California Sur, confusing? yes/maybe, but they are their right names. I found this situation similiar to the name of the US states of Virginia and West Virginia. --JC 09:10, 25 July 2007 (PST)
Face it: the name of your state is confusing, since it can mean either Baja California (state) or Beja California (peninsula). "Norte" simply helps us geographically-challenged, non-Mexicans to distinguish between the two; what's wrong with that? I'd say a better comparison would be New York, which may refer to either the state or the city. In that case, the solution is to use New York State and New York City, both of which are in heavy use. Wouldn't it be confusing if either one were to be declared officially incorrect? It's no wonder that the use of "Norte" persists. Anyway, I suppose this isn't going to convince you. How about if we compromise and you allow me to say "Baja California (state)" instead? --Jwinius 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think so?, mmm could be, we always use "la peninsula" to reffer to the whole Baja California peninsula. I found more confusing the term Mexico, because we have a country, a state and a city sharing the same name. Hehe, I allow you to say "Baja California (state)", is the most accurate term =) --JC 21:30, 25 July 2007 (PST)
Okay, thanks! I've adjusted things now. It's been an interesting discussion. --Jwinius 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of men's national football (soccer) teams

Hey. Apologies for that mess-up over the Falkland Islands. My complaint is that which is summed up here - that though the Falkland Islands team obviously exists, it doesn't exist on the same level as other, truly national, teams. I recognise, for instance, that FIOGA recognises the Falklands team as their representative squad, but for instance, I believe it is still the case (as until very recently it also was in the Olympics) that football teams in the Commonwealth Games, and wherever else FIOGA represents the Falklands at, must be amateur sides, not professional. And yes, this isn't a list of Football Associations, but if you read that Talk page, it's become common consensus that a fully operational Football Association (and not a regional one either, except in rare exceptions) is necessary to prove that a team belongs on this list.

If you read that Talk page, you'll see that I initially shared your own views, and I want to support you, but the truth is that it is a page for national teams, and so we can't stick any old team there, if it doesn't truly belong there. I'm not the best at explaining this, you'd do better speaking with KevinMcE - he's involved in the talk on the Talk page, and essentially set the guidelines for which teams count and which don't. He would best be able to tell you why we made our decisions, and whether your choices are in line with policy. Falastur2 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 3RR

You do realise that, with each of your template retrofits today, you have made 4 reverts. You also failed to use the talk page to discuss your edits. If you do not willingly revert to the prior template (which, in effect, is the consensual one), I will report you for edit warring. Corticopia 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senseless; after all, I created the template not too long ago. Corticopia 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Ownership' is not the point: editing without any discussion and consensus is. And, labelling your edit upfront as 'cleanup' doesn't help your case. And in English it's properly 'Middle America', not 'middle America'. Corticopia 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You effectively reverted an alphabetised version to a stratified, skewed one repeatedly based on your criteria alone. Corticopia 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what you're trying to prove. The constituents of Middle America are not in dispute, but your framing and boosterism in the template is. You continue to place and consider Mexico a region all on its own, previously including it in the elusive 'North America (region)', when it can be placed in any number of regions. For current purposes, an alphanbetical arrangement is sufficient.
Until compelled otherwise, I will continue to restore the status quo ... which is as it was when I completed the template. Corticopia 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will continue to be reverted. Corticopia (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you reverted Middle America (Americas) three times and are at risk of violating 3RR. If you breach it, you will be reported. Corticopia (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, yours a revert to a prior version in January. Anyhow, I tire of arguing with a child. Corticopia (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody reported you

JC, Corticopia reported you for violating the 3RR. However, you haven't received a block before and that might help you, also Corticopia lied in the report, because you didn't revert 4 times as he alleges. I will correct that in the report, but you need to speak up for yourself. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JC, I ended up not correcting his report. I think it is better if the admins. note that by themselves. I, however, added a comment about his false report. If you want to speak with me more directly, you can find me online in MSN, I think you have my e-mail. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is the page where you can reply [2]. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the direction of Mexican highways

I'm curious about this edit. I had used a consistent south-north and west-east order. I assume you're referring to the direction that the kilometer posts increase; is this consistent on all highways? In other words, if I take Highway 190 from Mexico City to Guatemala, will the posts always be going in the same direction, even when they reset at cities? --NE2 10:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America userbox

Hola Juan Carlos!-- S'olo para comentar que met'i mano a tu caja de usuario porque a~nade un espacio espurio sobre la caja, que desalinea del resto de las cajas (mira mi userpage para que lo confirmes). Con la correcci'on que hab'ia hecho ese espacio espurio desaparece. Hay otras formas de a~nadir las instrucciones. Espero que te satisfaga.-- Env'io esta nota antes de llegar a las tres reediciones reglamentarias.-- Louie (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't get rid of the spurious space... you may consider deleting the instrucions above: few userboxes use it, and they usually make havoc among non-experienced (or even seasoned) users. Louie (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saludos

Hola JC, no he podido estar en Wikipedia tanto como desearía pero paso a saludarte y a decirte que aquí andamos en la "lucha" por una mejor enciclopedia sin prejuicios ni cosas que ambos sabemos. Gracias por todo y que tengas un excelente día. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about edit warring

Look, I noticed your edits at Northern America (disambiguation) and at Geography of Mexico are edit warring which are a violation of blocking policy (note: you can be disruptive even you are reverting just once a day). Stop that right now and I'd suggest you two discuss it on the talk page. Also, in case you think I'm playing favorites, I've also warned User:Corticopia as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We

We, porfavor metete a la discusion de geografia de mexico y comenta algo al respecto, ya me tienen hasta la madre estos tipos, a y si tienes tiempo podrias meterte aca tambien y apoyarme para que los articulos de Mexico incluyan en estado junto con la ciudad asi como cualquier ciudad de EUA, he tradado de cambiar la norma hacia mexico pero estos hjp no me dejan hacerlo, ya no tienen nada que decir pero cada evz que quiero editar finalmente el articulo salen con la mamada de "con hay concenso" espero tus comentarios, camara nos vemos. Supaman89 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii

Please join in the discussion at Talk:Ages of consent in North America. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]