User talk:HueyXocoatzin

Come play the Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

About your edits in the article Demographics of Mexico
Hello, I've created this section to discuss in depth the changes you have performed in the last hours to the article "Demographics of Mexico" as well as address your doubts and concerns and so a non-sensical exchange of reversions can be prevented. Looks like you are a rather new editor with some conflicts in your previous history, so firstly I want to inform you about consensus on Wikipedia and what it means: In short consensus in Wikipedia refers to the accepted state of an article. What you are doing right now is to alter on a rather significative manner the version of the article that is currently accepted on Wikipedia, disregarding the opinion of the editors who have worked on the article previously. This constitutes disruptive editing from your part (and in turn, means you can't accuse an editor who is trying to upheld the current consensus of being disruptive), so please discuss your concerns regarding said article before fully reverting again and removing several reliable sources for reason that you haven't explained properly at all, for example: What do you mean when you say that the sources confrim that Spaniards were the most numerous ethnic group in colonial cities but they don't do it "oftenly"? if you are aware that's what the sources say why do you remove them anyway? I also notice that you are removing reliable data regarding frequencies of light hair and eyes in Mexicans, for which you haven't given any reason at all and are trying to add extra offical sources to a section that talks about official sources only. I hope I can clear your doubts so we can leave this misunderstanding behind soon. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I believe that my past foolish edits should not be brought up in a discussion unless Christina Broccolini, or my adolescent obsession with some fitness YouTube show, is pertinent to it. I've clearly made honest attempts to correct incorrect assertions, and I believe that you only brought that into the discussion for character assassination in favor of some weak justification of whatever agenda you plan on pushing on Wikipedia. It's in no way productive to our conversation. But that's neither here nor there since you've decided to message me about the demographics of Mexico's past and present. To start off, I'd like to address how meaningful "consensus" in Wikipedia is. Consensus seems to be a very plastic concept. For this online encyclopedia, its standards for it are merely, and I'm paraphrasing, "a point that has yet to be challenged",  whether it be through editing or discussion on the "Talk" page. Every user who has edited the page has a different perspective from what it once previously had. Their editing of it qualifies as a new consensus, until it's been challenged. So, there's not necessarily an "agreed upon" consensus on the page simply because you've dedicated a couple years to vehemently defending whatever point you're trying to prove in this article, which has consisted of deleting graphs, statistics, and sources from the article--without clarifying why--in favor of flimsy ones. Of course, this activity stems back much earlier than today. As for the sources you've provided, I have no problem with their origin. I do, however, have a problem with what it's reported to contain. The sources you've provided provide little to no support for the claims that you've put forth, i.e. "..Spaniards were often the most numerous ethnic group in the colonial cities." The sources you've provided took a census of the inhabitants of several Mexican cities... PERIOD. Of those cities, some of them had a sizable Spaniard population. This is not reflective of colonial Mexico overall--which is what "oftenly" implies when discussing Mexico's colonial cities--and any attempt to make a connection with the provided information, along with your claim, is merely an abstraction that is not legitimate in an encyclopedia and is better suited for a blog. Unless you have research papers that actually confirm what you're stating, you have no valid reason to try and legitimize that claim. The same goes for the supposed 40% white population of Mexico, which, again, is unsubstantiated by any of the sources you cited (the figure comes from Mexican citizens who believe their skin tone to be "rather light", not white), or the supposed 30% mestizo population of Mexico. Your citations may be official, but they in no way directly support any of the claims you make regarding the demographics of Mexico. This is precisely why I stated that the stats provided by the CIA are more reliable than the uncorroborated ones you provide, whether its "extra-official" is not a valid concern for anyone that's deciding between your figures and a central intelligence agency's. This is partially why I believe that you're being disingenuous and, consequently, disruptive. To me, it just seems that you're relying on the masses' general laziness and hope to not have your sources scrutinized. At least, that must be what you intended to rely upon. Of course, this would be until you realized that most people tend to be intimidated by walls of text being directed at them, so you've convinced yourself that you can "clear doubts" with said strategy. But, I also hope that we can have a productive discussion and hopefully have the intellectual honesty to admit when and where we're wrong in order to produce the most accurate page for anyone that stumbles upon this topic. Cheers. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am bringing your past conflicts because the reason of said conflicts is the same than the conflicts you are having with me right now (trying to impose your version over the consensuated one etc.). But moving to the actual points of discussion I see why it was necessary to discuss this in a more in-depth manner: You claimed that "Spaniards being the majority in some colonial towns is not reflective of colonial Mexico overall" however, the population of colonial Mexico was very centralised, Mexico city and Guanajuato city amounted for more than half of the population of it (and Spaniards are the most prominent ethnic group in both), with no mention of the medium-sized cities that are also mentioned, where spaniards also are the biggest ethnic group, once that things are put in the right perspective, the claim that Spaniards often were the major ethnic group is a completely true statement. The same thing happens with the white Mexicans figure, you say that Mexicans identifying with light skin tones is not the same as Mexicans identifying as white, but you are not considering that the perspective the Mexican government uses for it's ethnoracial research has long been that of skin color, not ethnic self-identification, this because the primary reason for research is not to see "how many whites or mestizos the country has" but to analyze social inequalities and racial stratification, as they believe skin color yields more accurate and stable results. Moreover, it's been well observed that the term light skinned Mexican and White Mexican are used interchangeably. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, those edits were not done in a serious manner, and my punishment was a result of a cheap attempt at humor. I've moved passed that point of my life and am looking to honestly improve this page by providing the most accurate data and NOT obfuscate any necessary information to push an agenda. I’ll continue my reply on the talk page of the Demographics of Mexico. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article Demographics of Mexico
Because is pointless, you've tried for nearly two years, by means of using multiple accounts (and there's much evidency, for example, you are leaving "menacing" notices on my talk page just like you did in 2017 with other account of yours, which also tried to remove the frecuencies of light eyes and hair in Mexicans under the very same reasonings you are using ), to try to reduce traces of European ancestry in Mexico, to this point you've started at least eight different discussions and the result has always been the same, you aren't going to get your bad intentioned edits through no matter how many more discussions you create simply because you are wrong. Don't you think that it's about time you find something more productive to spend your time on? I sincerily hope you come to your senses soon. Have my best regards. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Your “much evidency” consists of another editor who had a similar contentio--with your embarrassingly irrational reasoning--as one of my many contentions and arguments? Is this a joke? First of all, I wasn't even interested in anything related to Mexico at that time. This account was initially created for a horribly carried-out joke regarding the Delray Misfits, which has clearly stopped being a pursuit of mine (and if I was as self-aware as to create a new account to evade suspicion, I definitely wouldn't use this account because of its history). I then became interested in Mesoamerican cultures, which then became an interest in Pre-Columbian American cultures, which then led me to discovering the absolute mess you've been working on for almost two years throughout Wikipedia, and that's pretty consistent in my and your logs. As for the “menacing” warnings I've left on your page, they're absolutely warranted. Judging by the dishonesty and vehemence you've displayed in spreading this pseudo-scientific propaganda, you're making pathetic attempts at trying to “whitifie” Mexico and I'd probably even go as far to claim you're a white-nationalist. Mexico never has been and currently isn't predominantly populated by whites, and all attempts you've made to try and demonstrate that have been scrutinized and fallen flat on their face. The discussion I created on the talk page of the article is evident of this; you're disingenuous, motivated, and persistent in spreading this gobbledygook throughout the entirety of Wikipedia. Clearly I'm not the first one to spot this behavior, and it will be dealt with. This little campaign of yours will end, and it'll either be dealt with by an admin or you'll come to your senses and find something actually productive to do with your time. Good luck in your pursuits in life, because this one is finally coming to an end.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin
 * Is not only "the contention", it’s the same incredibly extremist argument about how "light brown hair/eyes are not white", it’s the same content trying to be removed and the same “intimidation” tactics. With no mention that there’s also your clumsy claims about how "I’ve been distorting wikipedia for two years" even though you made this account less than one year ago, additionally, you’ve requested name changes for both accounts. For someone who claims to be a Mesoamerican Indigenous People’s enthusiast you sound seriously obsessed and extremist regarding Europeaness-related topics (interesting how you call me a white nationalist when the only one who has made made repeated claims about "racial purity" in this ordeal has been you, ). If you want to contact an administrator or something, feel free to do it, you’ve done it before and it hasn’t worked for you either. It may rikochet badly on you but perhaps that’s the only way you’ll understand. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How is the fact that you baselessly assert that the Mexican population that has light brown eyes or hair equates to them being white not “incredibly extremist”? Of course I, and other editors, would have a problem with that evidence-less claim. It's not some esoteric conviction that only a select few people could only hold or an incredibly extreme stance; it's common sense. And I'm not just trying to remove that falsehood, I'm also trying to remove all false information you've edited into the article regarding the demographics of Mexico, including the past and present demographics; and it's all thanks to the scholars that study the demographics of Mexico.


 * What importance does the age of my account have to do with the clear 2 year long campaign you've been on? Does the age of my account limit the amount of years I can go back to see what has been edited on a page? I don't need to have a two year old account to know that you've been going on editing sprees on a select amount of pages for nearly 2 years. And yet again, you make another tenuous mental link regarding name changes for accounts. We both made name changes for our accounts… okay… and in what way is that supposed to bolster your accusation of me being an editor you previously had a dispute with? I just made clear that this account came about in an attempt to carry out a poorly thought out joke. The name I previously used for this account was “Rock'nrollnibber”, which was a reference to a song of Marilyn Manson's, which is not a very good name to have if you want to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor.


 * And my “interest” with “Europeanness” related topics didn't start until I ran into the [Demographics of Mexico] article and saw the history of the page, which I only decided to do because I wanted to compare the 1920 demographics to today's and thought it was suspicious how it's perhaps the only source of information that claims for Mexico's population to be over 40% white. Do any of my contributions reflect my supposed “obsession” with European topics before I stumbled into your propaganda campaign? Certainly not, but the same can't be said of you.


 * “Racial purity” became a topic of discussion because that's a necessary distinction if you actually want to find out the demographics of Mexico. Your weak attempts to conflate “Calidad” with “Raza” in order to make the white population seem larger than what it actually was has been dismantled. And the reason I'm not weary of your motivations is because I've seen these types of talking points sprout in forums that discuss race in a very “Eurocentric” manner. What I mean by this is you're not necessarily concerned about the Mexican population actually believing or reflecting your claim of Mexico being predominantly populated by whites, but you're seeking the approval of other white nationalists who aren't completely learned on the demographics of certain Latin American countries; whether by anecdotal experience or an “in-depth” look at statistics. And I've specifically seen this be the case in users whose origins can be traced back to countries like Brazil and Mexico on a subforum called /pol/ on 4chan(one example I stumbled upon researching MS), which I'm sure you're well aware of. And to elaborate on anecdotal experience, if you were to tell Mexican citizens that Mexico is predominantly populated by whites, they'd laugh in your face because their entire life experience says otherwise.


 * If an admin has been contacted before, I'm sure it was on unstable grounds. Your history, irrational conclusions, and crystal clear motivation would be a pretty hard thing to look over. The Wikipedia pages of almost every talking point you use to reinforce your claims of Mexico being predominantly populated by whites have been to some extent edited by you. And all those pages are still currently being monitored by you. That statement of “For someone who claims to be a Mesoamerican Indigenous People’s enthusiast you sound seriously obsessed and extremist regarding Europeaness-related topics...“ levied towards me really makes one think… A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't dismantled anything at all, you are just blindly holding to the only one source that we can't actually verify for being unaviable, in fact the space edit summaries give is enough to refute your claims (also literary sources consider the 1921 census data inaccurate). Respecting wheter you are a sockpuppet or not, be advised that I opened a Sockpuppet investigation on which you are heavily involved so we can see what administrators think. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've done quite a respectable job dismantling your falsehoods and scrutinizing your sources. And Aguirre-Beltrán is definitely not my only source since he, his numbers, and terminology have been explained and approved of by other scholars; namely: Cook/Borah, Mccaa, Sherburne, etc. See, if you would've paid attention to my responses, you would've known this already because it was initially explained over one week ago with sources. And the responses I'm giving in the edit summaries are just summaries of what I've already written(which is why I stopped replying in the talk page discussion), but I guess I'll have to keep addressing them until this is taken care of. And I know that people consider the 1921 census inaccurate; it compelled indigenous peoples to identify with the colonial concept of “Mestizo” en masse both then and now. Federico Navarrete Linares has done a pretty good job explaining this in “México racista: Una denuncia”, however it's the last official racial census conducted by the Mexican government, which makes it a much more trustworthy source of information than your poorly done interpretation of skin pigmentation surveys. I'm glad to hear that you've opened a sockpuppet investigation on me. I anticipate the results and hope to use the results in favor of my request to block your account for being a bad-faithed, disruptive editor.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

 * Hi, Masum Reza. Thanks for suggesting the Wikipedia Adventure game and inviting me to the Teahouse. The game was fun and I picked up a few new tricks. I have a question about the Teahouse, though. Will the more experienced editors answer my questions or give me advice about the specific dispute I'm currently in? I've noticed a pattern of not getting specific input on it. And I'm not trying to be insultive in anyway, Oshwah did a great job responding to me and was fair in levying temporary blockings. What I'm really looking to get out of this is advice on how I should go about things in this specific case while getting a few questions answered aswell. Cheers! HueyXocoatzin (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi HueyXocoatzin! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 03:04, Wednesday, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello HueyXocoatzin, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to List of inventions and innovations of indigenous Americans have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to view what exactly was removed. I'm guessing it was the section about Xeriscaping, which I suppose the wording and structure was too similar to the original. I'll keep this noted and try to rephrase the section completely to not have this issue again. Thanks for the message. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AztecWheeledToy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AztecWheeledToy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)