User talk:08OceanBeach SD/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

North America table

Excuse 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 ~~with the pictures within~~ but it doesn't contain the info we all agreed to show in the table and it also is super big which was the main problem. Thanks for reading and commenting. Karni Fro^{( Talk to me)} 20:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Regions of Mexico

Hello 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. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

See this Northwest Mexico Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think it would be good for the article to follow a similar format that List of regions of the United States follows. Doing so would allow us to list more regions, such as Baja. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article and I got tons of ideas to implement. I can add electoral regions, time zone regions, and much more. It was a very good example, thanks. I need to ask if the region Baja is a US thing because I think I've heard Americans saying "I'm going to Baja" even if they go to any of the two states. You could add an informal regions section as in the US article. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I award you this special barnstar because of your understanding and civility about the final outcome at article North America. It takes a courage and a great person to recognize and concede. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

new cat

Nice work on the new cat for Southern Border Region (California). Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America

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). Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also please note that it was agreed to mantain the subsection after the Countries and Territories table. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the section there is no citation for the a fore said. Perhaps you could add the source from the Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America; that would clear up any confusion. I must have missed that part of consensus, my bad. Though I will say would it not be better to have it at the beginning of the article so people know what is and isn't being talked about throughout the article? 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't think a reference is needed there because of what I said above, but ok I will add an inline reference if you consider it would help. I kinda think the same that the other users think about the place for the usage of the term section. I already agreed about it. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand but I don't Solemn Act is not mentioned anywhere in the text. It would also be of general assistance to those not familiar with Mexico's history for it to be cited. I have just seen the discussion and it is not a big deal so I will leave it be. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to create BRICS

Hi 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. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Latin America

I'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. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 13:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the article history briefly and it seemed you there had been mild edit war with you and Chipmunkdavis. I simply changed it back to the last version prior to the edit war and what had seemed to be agreed upon previously though edit summaries. I may have changed it back to the last version. My apologies if I did. And no, I have not been following your contributions. The template is transcluded on many pages like the Culture of Cuba page that I stumbled upon it on. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry if I was hasty, it is just that I do wholeheartdely want to collaborate with you and I don't want to return to the previous animosity we were stuck with. No need to apologize! It's ok! There is no edit war between me and Chipmunkdavis, don't worry and thanks for your reply. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Arden-Arcade

Stop 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)

The only issue is that you have not begun a discussion for the move. In the previous discussion it was decided that Arden Arcade was the preferred title, by the CDP populace and Wikipedia editors. If you want to move the article to Arden-Arcade then by all means begin a discussion. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're being petty. Now we have 2 articles. Arden no hypen Arcade is NOT A CENSUS-DESIGNATED PLACE. Your insistence is saying it is is a WP:HOAX. Stop it. The Census Bureau determines the names of census-designated places, and no discussion is necessary to have the article at the official place name. It's a bloody waste of time and unnecessary WP:BUREAUCRACY. You move it again, you better have a reliable source for your contention that there is a census-designated place of that name or you'll be guilty of more HOAXes, and take what comes your way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're making this much more complicated than it actually is. Wikipedia policy is to discuss before making controversial changes, not the other way around - as you have been doing. I'm simply asking you start a proper move discussion before moving it again. Arden Arcade has been shown to be the preferred name over Arden-Arcade. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 08:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Monterrey buildings article

Hello Ocean, are you still considering creating an article about Monterrey buildings? Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 10:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow I just saw this, excellent job creating the article Port of Ensenada! Congratulations! Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's still in the works! But yes I am, thanks for reminding me. I'll begin the article soon. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 08:25, 18 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! 08OceanBeach^S.D. 08:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Baja California project

Hi 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)

No, I was wondering the same thing about information on Ensenada Boroughs. However, the information should be on the links of the government sites, though if you check the Tijuana City site the information is no longer linked on the home page. I'll see what I can find though. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 09:12, 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:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One week for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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. 08OceanBeach^S.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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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, 08OceanBeach^S.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:

the reference you gave later does not support this fact
The Telegraph reports that in 2008, visitor levels fell by over 50%
there are plenty of way larger and/or more interesting cities in the Northern Hemisphere; Rio de Janeiro, to name just one
Tijuana doesn't even have a port

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)

It's probable that it has changed in recent years. It also depends on the statistics being used to determine the fact. Tijuana does have a port, but not in the traditional sense. It's the San Ysidro Port of Entry, the largest port of entry, in terms of people crossing a border, in the world. It's been estimated 50 million people cross into the city each year. I'll see if I can find more reliable sources though. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 15:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say "harbor". As far as I know, there is no harbor in Tijuana (please correct me if I'm mistaken). -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 14:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You would be correct. It seems that Tijuana has fallen from that position, and is no longer recognized as such, as only a few sources mentioned it the most visited. Their reliability was questionable, however numerous sources pointed to the city being the most visited border city, and that information was added accordingly. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 18:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)