User talk:Ocelotl10293

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Please also discuss potentially controversial edits on the talk page of the article you are trying to change. SJSA 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Mexican Army images / issues
Please stop adding images from photobucket to the article and become familiar with the Image use policy of wikipedia. If you have an open source image or an image which you own the copyright to you can upload it directly to wikipedia or the commons and then put them in the article if appropriate. You can't just post up images like that from photobucket. Also please try to discuss the changes you are making. All you are doing now is removing and changing information without explanation. Until you explain what you are doing your edits will be reverted. SJSA 10:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its great that you want to keep inaccurate information out of the article, but you can't rely on photographic evidence unless it is supported by a published secondary or tertiary source. If your only source supporting the inclusion of the FX-05 in the list is a picture that you took of Mexican soldiers marching in a parade with FX-05 rifles, you can not include that per WP:RS. If your source is a news article of a major newspaper which includes that same photo and a caption, THEN you can use that as a source. But you still can't say becasue it wasn't named in your source that it must not be true, when \\\\i have provided more than one reference (check the article talk page for the .ru link) for corroborating the existence of these weapons in the inventory of the Mexican military. These lists were compiled through a variety of sources including sales records form the companies that made the weapons! And it is not our place to put only things that we believe to be true, we put information that is verifiable by an outside source WP:Verifiability. SJSA 18:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of Mexico
Try to find legitimate sources documenting Mexico's firearms arsenal, but don't just plug Mexico in on every User list. Koalorka (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I am the one that has removed Mexico from many User lists for lack of citations and credible sources, that is the reason i was engaged in that editing war earlier this year with other individuals that did not comprehend what constitutes a valid source. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello there freind its glad to see a partner on editing the Mexican armed forces articles to there correct stance, thank you...Homan05

Re: Vandalism
Thanks for letting me know. I reported the user to WP:AIV, and Materialscientist has blocked him/her. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexican people
Greetings! I see you created the page Mexicans last month. Thank you for taking the initiative, I've been wanting to do the same (Although now we can add one more article to look after; I can assure you it will attract the most idiotic vandalizers). The page is about a very diverse people group and I'd like to see it well balanced (as you do)- It is going to be quite a goal to work toward. Especially since the subject can be viewed many different ways. "Mexicans" aren't a racial group, and to most, the words "ethnic group" are very confusing. Not to mention, Mexico itself is composed of three main ethnic groups (two base racial groups, + one that is a combo of both) and we usually either throw them all into one big group or take one and not another.

What are your ideas on presenting (or bettering) the article in those terms? You said, "as an ethnic group...instead of a demographic that is broken down into even more demographics." Can you elaborate? Do you mean treat Mexican people as ONE ethnic group, no matter their race (Amerindian, European, mixed, etc.) Well, thanks again for creating the article - I hope to be a collaborator and help out.

P.S. I have to make a quick first suggestion: Following the formula used by other "people" articles (ie. French people, Italian people, Colombian people, etc.) I think its better if we "move" the page to 'Mexican people' and not keep it under 'Mexicans' - although I can see why you might like that. C.Kent87 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure I understand what happened when you created the page "Mexican people". I'm trying to fix it though, because I think it would conform better to Wikipedia and its other articles.


 * Yes, I knew race and ethnicity weren't the same, I was only commenting that you can get sort of confused as to where they overlap. But, I'm in agreement that we should make the article deal with Mexicans as one people and I totally agree that most Mexicans see themselves as being that, with shades from white to brown (or vice-versa). I have overheard that discussion within my family's older generation as well. (I'm also Mexican-American). And the part: "there exist many who suffer some sort of identity crisis and lean toward one group or the other and begin racist agendas within the collective identity of Mexicans as a group" - I TOTALLY agree. I'm very much middle-of-the-road. You can find Numerous positive aspects from both sides of our ancestry. We need more Mexicans (And Mex. Am.'s) who give equal representation to each of our roots, and give us a sense of unity.


 * Well, I look forward to editing bits and pieces. Please don't be afraid to tell me what you think, and I will also be voiceful. Saludos! C.Kent87 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Help on the Mexico Article
Hello! I have read your work and am now wondering if you could assist me with a problem i've come across in the Mexico article. I recently tried to add a picture of an Aztec dancer to the culture section of the Mexico section which already has a picture of Jarabe Tapatío. I did not remove the picture that was there, i only added another but then one editor keeps removing it saying that it's not represenative to Mexican culture. I responded to that with the following:

I honestly believe that the Aztec dancers can be considered a relavent cultural aspect to the culture section but i do see your argument that it could be considerd none-representative of the country as a whole. However i don't believe the current picture is completely representative to Mexico as a whole either and i think massive segments of the national population would agree to neither of the pictures as being not universally representative. So i believe that both can be considered equally relevent. If we only leave either one it is not completely representative of the whole nation and will lean to one stance or the other so i think that having just one is not trully representative of the cultures that make Mexico.

I am wondering if you could offer your opinion on the talk page so that i could at least view another opinion.

Click this for the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#Reverting_Rahlgd.27s_edits

I just think that the editor is just biased against Amerindians because once in the past in the Demogaphics section of Mexico when i tried to state that Amerindians are the second largest group in Mexico he said i was wrong and kept reverting the information i posted even though it had credible sources and then said i was racist against whites cause i kept saying there were more Indians. And when i added an image of amerindians to the demograpics section he kept deleying it and saying there are more whites than Amerindians without providing sources (a stupid argument to even have anyways since it dosen't really matter) and said that i probably hate Whites and Mestizos. From his previous edits and statements he seems to have a very marginalized and biased view of Amerindians and therfore Mestizos and most of Mexico if you think about it. It's getting really frustrating dealing with these stupid race minded arguments which are irrelevent anyways, i mean no matter what we're all Mexican right?

Either way i'm not going to bring this up to him since i don't want to revert to using acuizations as my argument.

But it would really help if i could hear you'r opinion and if you could assist me if any of these stupid race based arguments come up again. Thank you for your time. Rahlgd (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Ocelotl to come to your talk page, but I think it is highly uncivil of user Rahlgd to come to you for "help" (or better said to support his POV) and at the same time starting to spread a prejudice against my person. It is low of him to have this attitude. I urge you to read the whole discussion in the talk page. Sadly this is not the first time that user Raghdl has tried to add too many pictures. Not only myself have reverted his many "additions", but a pool of different users. However, he never seem to listen to the arguments. Thanks.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism & Bias
It seems you keep adding biased information from a 20 year old source (CIA) that would now be outdated in 2010 (obviously). This is a warning, please stop writing biased things on the article "Mexican people". Do not write opinions on a subject that is not clear or precise, do not write based on original research, find updated and reliable resources. Thank you --Chris Iz Cali (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mestizos
For the medicine reference page of Mexican mestizos, it says mestizos are over 80%, while on the government report page it says mestizos in Mexico, El Salvador, etc. are between 70-90% I suppose 90% is for El Salvador because that is what it is says on its infobox on El Salvador's article (check out the "ethnic groups" part). So I don't know where you came up with 86%, if you came up with a median or a mean, then you cannot do so because it is inaccurate to take a judgment for something as profound as this. It does not correspond correctly to your given sources.--76.83.0.12 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the mean of the sources. The INMAGEN article states that the Mexican population is over 80% Mestizos genetically. The other source places Mexico ambiguously in the 70%-90% margin. We know Mexico can't be 70% because of the data in the previous source thus the number should fall somewhere over 80% but below 90%. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how you say that the CIA info is outdates, yet you keep putting Natives as being 30% of the population, and keeping whites as 9%, when clearly the immigration to the US by Mexicans has been mostly Natvie and mestizo because whites consolidate more money in Mexico due to hisotrical reasons (castas).--76.83.0.12 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * About half of the people migrating to the United States from Mexico happen to be "white." The most common mistake and prejudice people make is believing that only the Amerindians and Mestizos suffer economic hardship in Mexico. Many "white" Mexicans happen to be on the same boat with the rest of the Mexican population. Now the reason that the "white" population of Mexico (the rich segment) made more profits for the nation was because historically (even until this very day) this tight knit upper class have monopolized most of the Mexican economy but they employ armies of mestizos, or in the colonial period, armies of indigenous workers. Almost all of the colonial buildings that survive to this day in various regions of Mexico were built by indigenous laborers. By studying the past Census counts you will see that whites were always a minority in Mexico and the indigenous population although severely reduced by disease remained the majority group up until the last Census count in the 1920's. Also, the mestizo and indigenous communities tend to have more children, usually around 5-8 kids per couple whereas those in the white upper classes tend to have 2-3. What also needs to be taken into account is that more and more "white" Mexicans are intermarrying with mestizos or indigenous Mexicans which is slowly homogenizing the Mexican population. There is mass migration heading north on the part of racially indigenous Mexicans but there is very little migration south by White Mexicans. Also worth considering is that not all Mexicans who migrate into the U.S. stay there forever. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic that you say that half of the migrants are white, if that was true, then there wouldn't be stereotypes of BROWN Mexicans, since the pre-existing whites Mexican-Americans outnumbered the brown Mex-Americans, and if half of it was white immigration, then whites would be overwhelmingly the majority of Mexicans in USA, however, Mexican-Americans are not overwhelmingly white as can be shown by the U.S. CENSUS. Sure there might be one or two whites as illegals, but it is ludicrous to think that even 10% of the illegals are white, let alone 50%. It would be more like 2% or less.--76.83.0.12 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the U.S. Census Mexicans have at times been defined as "white." And since when are stereotypes 100% accurate? Americans racially stereotyped all Mexicans as brown due mostly to racial prejudice and often the desire to degrade Mexicans as "colored folk" in order to deny them benefits or acceptance into American society. This stereotype does not represent the reality. And if half of Mexicans migrating to the U.S. are white what makes you think that this would make them the "overwhelming majority?" That is an erroneous assumption by your part. These people do not look overwhelmingly "brown" to me: . Just as not all Norther Mexicans are "purely white":  . From the video and photos you can very easily see a Mestizo phenotype in physical appearance. Just to contras these are Spanish people: . Also, judging based on superficial appearance, stereotypes and prejudices is very inaccurate. This is why we rely on scholarly sources. A person may look white in appearance but his genes may say otherwise. Is this person a white Amerindian:  ? Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexican women?
I look a images from Mexican Women with very interesting life.--Marrovi (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Others; Rosario Castellanos and Josefa Ortíz de Dominguez.


 * Your electiction is very good, I dislike famous people, politician and show celebrities into a Enciclopedic article; I love Salma Hayek but I prefer in this article to María Félix or Katy Judado. See you my friend! (If you want, could be written me in Spanish language).--Marrovi (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Ocelotl10293, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Ocelotl10293. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your edit war in the Mexican People article
You have the nerve to accuse me of racism, when it was you who removed Guillermo del Toro, with the lame excuse of artists supposedly being over-represented? As if i haven't noticed your intentions of displaying Mexicans the way you want them to look. I had simply reverted your biased edit, because Guillermo del Toro is more notable than that scientist and his six-sentence article. It had absolutely nothing to do with his race or skin color. — Lancini87 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Genetic Study
My mistake, the source for the ASHG presented Mexican Study of mestizo genes shows up the Abstract page for the 2006 meeting (http://www.ashg.org/genetics/ashg06s/). But, click on that link, then go to where it says "SEARCH ONLY", then there'll be several little places where to type stuff you want to search (on the left hand side). Go to the one that says "Abstract/Presentation Text" and type in "Mexican mestizo" and you should get 9 results. The 7th result is the study I put on the Mexican people article. It should be titled "Evaluation of Ancestry and Linkage Disequilibrium Sharing in Admixed Population in Mexico." Then you'll see that I did not put false information. I'm not sure why the link won't take directly to that page (I think it's because it's a pop up little screen from a Java command). Have a good day!--Fernirm (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice to find out how to make a source out of it that will take one directly to that page and not to the general abstract page for the 2006 meeting.--Fernirm (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

GDL Municipality and the metropolitan area
Good to meet another editor dedicated to Mexico! I assume you have a problem with the ethnic information that was added to the Municipality and the metropolitan area section and now what is above. If that's the case, you dont need to wait to eliminate it. Without a reliable source, that kind of information is worse than having nothing at all. Even if it did have a good citation, I would have it in the demographics section.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)