User talk:Pob3qu3

Welcome!
Hello, Pob3qu3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Murph 9000 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I'm Murph9000. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mexicans of European descent, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Murph 9000 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I already added the citation, no worries.

Talkback
Murph 9000 (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Demographics of Mexico. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I see, I wrote most of it myself I believe Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC).

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

December 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Mexicans. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ★ Iñaki ★   (Talk page) ★ 04:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

★ Iñaki ★, you are the one removing well sourced material from the article, not me. Additionally, your diffs reveal that you have very irrational and extremist views regarding ethnicy such as not considering dark blond hair "real blond hair", and refering to green, honey and light brown eyes not as light eyes but as "mixed eyes". It's clear that you have very questionable ulterior motives to edit the article in question, you are the one that must stop. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 01:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On Demographics of Mexico and White Latin Americans  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mis saludos
Hola, en primera vengo a disculparme por los indultos que dije aquel día, solo fue un mal pason, no tengo problemas con tus ediciones y sobre el blanco mexicano, pero si los tengo contigo porque yo siento que eres Bleckter un usuario mexicano cínico y malévolo que casualmente ya tenía el apoyo d EdJohnston, el dejo de edita en 2017 cuando casualmente entraste tú, muy posiblemente me confundí, lo siento. Y si, soy ElReydeEspana, se me acusó de vándalo hace como cinco años por los bibliotecarios, da igual, hace tiempo ya hice lo que tenía que hacer y mucho de lo que se me reconoce ya quedo en el pasado. Muchos Saludos y bendiciones. --186.151.136.8 (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Mexicans
 * added links pointing to Leon, Merida and El Carmen
 * White Mexicans
 * added links pointing to Leon, Merida and El Carmen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to ping you
Hi, Pob3qu3, I tried to ping you on the European Emigration Talk page, but I don't know if it worked, so I'm leaving this message here. (I'm not very technically proficient. :) ). --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Replying there right now, don't worry!. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from White Latin Americans. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to White Latin Americans, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. I haven't reverted yet, since I'm still thinking about my next step. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning: Canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence White Mexicans. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.


 * Soliciting edit left at user DHTwiki's talk page on 25 September 2022. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here on this diff you pinged Xuxo, who is a highly agressive editor whose behavios and edits mirror yours (this by your own admission), is it only canvassing when you aren't the one doing it? Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Contact
Hello, I've seen your altercation with this long-term disruptive user on certain pages and I would like to talk more about the subject, let me know if you are available,

Best regards. LothofOrkney (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Greetings LothofOrkney, I checked your interactions with said editor and I see some content disputes from some time ago but not something that can be considered disruptive, in these cases I’d suggest to include sources from both sides that are deemed to be reliable but with the due elaboration in regards to methodologies, sampling, locations etc. as usually both sides in a content dispute want to uphold valid but different parts of the same "truth" and don't realise that there's no actual reason for fighting. Now, if you suspect of the use of sockpuppets that's a whole different and more serious offense than that of back and fort reverting, here are some tools that can help you detect sock puppets . Let me know if you have more doubts in the matter. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on White Mexicans. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I am giving this warning to FlameBaggin as well  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Greetings EvergreenFir, I'm alreaydy thinking about what else could be done as SPIs tend to take a long time, conflicts I've had with throwaway accounts, be it with him or the already blocked ones are frustrating because as it can be seen per their diffs and actions, their problem is not really with the content of the article but directly with me, as he is mistaking me with a personal enemy of his. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

About Pueblos Indigenas de Mexico
Let’s form a consensus about the Spanish page, Pueblos Indígenas de México. I have sent you a few messages on my talk page Here. I have provided evidence as to why the content shouldn’t be added in. PedroDonasco (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add to this topic, as the user PedroDonasco and I have been going back and forth regarding this topic for weeks now, and is misrepresenting data regarding self identification of the indigenous peoples of Mexico. The 23,232,391 who self identify as indigenous do not include those who identify as partially indigenous. There is no such category in the 2020 census. That category existed in the 2015 census and we discussed that fact lengthily. There is no source he has been able to cite which states the self identified indigenous population counted in the 2020 census includes "those who partially identify as indigenous". I will provide a link for the full discussion. Here is a link to the previous discussion if you are interested in reviewing it as well as the sources. He has been edit warring with me on the premise of original research and opinion regarding this very topic. I have requested a third opinion for the discussion but we've yet to receive one, and apparently he is attempting to circumvent this by duping you into believing his misrepresentation of facts. Let us continue this discussion further. Talk:Indigenous peoples of Mexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataNStats (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * In fact, it’s stated in multiple pages that it includes partially indigenous peoples as well who choose to identify more with their indigenous side, I linked Demographics of Mexico to your talk page where it originally came translated from the Spanish version of the page in which it clarified that the 20% figure included those of partially indigenous ancestry, even the government chooses to use the 12 million figure as I have cited 10 different sources. There is also many cites to support my claim and it is generally accepted among the public even within the Ethnic groups of Latin America page. PedroDonasco (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And it’s not coming from opinion, the government of Mexico themselves uses the 12 million figure to identify fully indigenous Mexicans, I am also not saying that the 20% figure is all mestizos or partially indigenous Mexicans, I am clarifying it includes partially indigenous Mexicans and mestizos. PedroDonasco (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the 20% figure doesn’t specify any specific indigenous ethnic groups, it is just an estimate for those who identify more with their indigenous side. The 10% however includes the indigenous ethnic groups within the country. PedroDonasco (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion as to who is or who is not "fully indigenous" since the Mexican government hasn't collected data on race since 1921, and the Mexican constitution states "the self awareness about the indigenous identity shall be the most important criteria to determine whom indigenous law applies to."
 * I'm not sure how you are deciding why one number is more legitimate than another to use to represent the whole indigenous population of Mexico when the census captured 3 sets of data pertaining to the indigenous population of Mexico:
 * Those who self identified as indigenous: 23,232,391
 * Those who live in a household where someone or an ancestor speaks an indigenous language:11,800,247
 * People who speak an indigenous language: 7,364,645
 * Each set of data is valid. It is not stated or captured in the census who is fully or partially indigenous. Your claim appears to be based upon original research, because the 2020 census did not capture who is fully or partially indigenous.https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825198060.pdf DataNStats (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just provided cites in which the indigenous peoples were counted based off of indigenous ethnicity rather than cultural self identification and numbering 11.8 million yet you claim I made original research, no, I am simply showing what the government themselves provided. PedroDonasco (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 11.8 million number you claim represents "fully indigenous people" are people who live in households where someone speaks an indigenous language. Several of the sources you have cited make that very clear. One can be of an indigenous ethnic group and not speak an indigenous language, hence the reason the question regarding self-identification was asked in the census. Representing those who live in a household where someone speaks an indigenous language as "fully indigenous people" or more "ethnically indigenous" compared to "self-identified indigenous people" is contrary to fact, because the sources you have cited do not state either statistic represents what you are claiming it represents. That is why your claim is categorically original research. Again, the Mexican government has not collected data on race since 1921. Culture and ethnicity are two in the same. The literal definition of ethnicity is: "the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.". A racially pure indigenous person can be mestizo on the basis of culture, vice-a-versa. You are equating ethnic group to race. They are not the same. Again, I ask, how do you come to the conclusion that 11.8 million people are "fully indigenous" if Mexico has not included the race question since the 1921 census? You are responding to me as if I haven't reviewed the sources. I invite you to point to a specific page, phrase, or footnote that is evidence of your claim being true within the cited materials. I have provided sources as well and will gladly point to a phrase, footnote, or whatever have you in that cited source that debunks your claim.
 * For example, here is a source you have cited: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/ccpv/2020/doc/Censo2020_Principales_resultados_EUM.pdf
 * This source you have cited is the basic questionnaire for the 2020 census published by INEGI, on page 49 (POBLACIÓN EN HOGARES INDÍGENAS
 * Y SU ESTRUCTURA POR EDAD Y SEXO), on the footnote of page it states: "Se identifica como población indígena a toda la población en viviendas donde la jefa o jefe, su cónyuge o alguno de los ascendientes de éstos, declararon hablar alguna lengua indígena.
 * Los porcentajes pueden no sumar 100%, debido al redondeo que genera diferencias poco significativas."
 * There is no mention of fully or partially indigenous with regard to that statistic in the publication. The statistic regarding those who self identified as indigenous was omitted from this publication, because the self identified indigenous population statistic was included in the expanded questionnaire publication.
 * This source you have cited is the expanded questionnaire of the 2020 census published by INEGI: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825198060.pdf
 * It is stated on page 62 POBLACIÓN DE 3 AÑOS Y MÁS QUE SE CONSIDERA INDÍGENA
 * SEGÚN SEXO(actually page 56 of the publication), on the footnote of the page: "El Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020, a través del Cuestionario Ampliado captó información sobre
 * Autoadscripción indígena. Los resultados permiten estimar que 23.2 millones de personas se autorreconocen
 * como indígenas, las cuales representan 19.4% de la población mexicana. Por sexo, el número de mujeres
 * que se considera indígena (11.9 millones) es mayor al de hombres (11.3 millones), aunque porcentualmente
 * representan 19.4% con respecto al total de mujeres y al total de hombres de 3 años y más de edad."
 * There is no mention of fully or partially indigenous with regard to that statistic in the publication. DataNStats (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok but I explained more in-depth in my talk page, in regards to the 11,800,247 estimate, there are many many government documents that use this number to identify indigenous peoples in Mexico, I have even showed you, that’s what the government and the public generally considers to be the number for the indigenous peoples of Mexico ethnically rather than culturally in which the 20% would apply, I originally wanted to keep the 20% figure out of the page as it didn’t count any ethnic groups and was just a term asking if a person with respect to their culture identified as indigenous, this could mean anything, people who carry partially indigenous blood or be mestizos culturally identify more with their indigenous side and mark the box, I am not trying to discredit the validity of your sources or of the other estimates, we both have points here, I am trying to say that if you phrase the 20 million figure not usually stated by the government or the public and rather a cultural self identification term as Mexicans identified as indigenous it could lead to misunderstandings among those who read the page, which is why I want to specifics that it indeed does include people considered mestizos and partially indigenous people who identify more with their indigenous side. And what I am saying is that the 11,800,247 would be considered the closest number to race within the 2020 census as you have to specifically declare indigenous ancestry by ethnic affiliation, such as Nahua rather than just saying if you identify as indigenous. If you want it reworded a different way you can tell me as long as all editors concerns are being met. And of the original research you are accusing me of, it is not original research, I am clarifying the general opinion as well as provide more information on the numbers. Also, almost around half of those in the 12 million figure wouldn’t speak an indigenous language yet they are classified as indigenous by the most common estimate.  PedroDonasco (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am willing to change things to match all of the editors concerns, if you would rather it reverted to your version than cooperate then I am not sure what to say other than we will never reach a consensus. PedroDonasco (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is simple, and that is to represent the data as it is represented in the census. I'm not suggesting anything controversial, as I am not attempting to have the data be represented in anyway other than how the source has it represented.
 * 7,364,645 people speak an indigenous language.
 * 11,800,247 people live in households where an indigenous language is spoken.
 * 23,229,089 people self identify as indigenous.
 * I'm not proposing any of the data be deleted, only that it be represented in the way the source material says as each set of information comes from the same census. I am not suggesting any number be considered THE number to represent who is indigenous in Mexico. DataNStats (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We can do that as long as it’s clarified that those self identifying as indigenous may be of partially indigenous descent and typically considered mestizo and that it’s more cultural identification rather than racial identification like with the consensus me and the user Pob3qu3 have made. PedroDonasco (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if we're going to put any kind of racial note beside this in the way you are suggesting, that it should be noted that (the self identified indigenous population may be either an undercount or an undercount based on race), as people who are purely or almost purely indigenous can be considered mestizo on the basis of their culture in the same way a racial mestizo can be considered indigenous on the basis of culture. DataNStats (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An undercount or an overcount I meant to say in parenthesis DataNStats (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * population      = 11,800,247 identified indigenous Mexicans (population living in an indigenous household) (9.36%).
 * 23,232,391 people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (includes Mexicans who are partially indigenous and considered mestizos) (19.4%)
 * 7,364,645 people who speak an indigenous language (Including bilinguals in Spanish.) (6.1%)
 * 865,972 people monolingual in an indigenous language (0.6%)
 * Here is my proposal, I kept the 12 million figure at the top as it was justified by the 3rd cite. I also didn’t want to make it too long. PedroDonasco (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 3rd cite is a 2nd hand publication based upon the 2020 census. The 2020 census is cited in the material. It is not logical to use a 2nd hand publication as greater than the source material. You asked for a compromise based upon the question of race, and I have provided one.
 * Here is my suggestion:
 * 23,232,391 (19.4%) people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (This can be an undercount or overcount based upon race).
 * 11,800,247 (9.4%) people live in households where an indigenous language is spoken.
 * 7,364,645 people who speak an indigenous language (Including bilinguals in Spanish.) (6.1%)
 * 865,972 people monolingual in an indigenous language (0.6%) DataNStats (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the 11 million figure I suggest keeping it at the top as it’s the most commonly used and cited by the Mexican government, other than that I believe a consensus can be reached. PedroDonasco (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy to keep the number in the set of statistics, but keeping it at the top because "it is commonly used" is making one number more important than another from the same set of data based upon original research, because they both come from the same source and the source material doesn't state one number as being more legitimate than the other. How about we list smallest to largest, so that the indigenous language speaking population is first and the populations ascend in order from there? This would not make the 23,232,391 number as prominent as the 11,800,247 number in that list, and keeps all numbers in an orderly manner. Like so:
 * 7,364,645 people who speak an indigenous language (Including bilinguals in Spanish.) (6.1%)
 * 11,800,247 (9.4%) people live in households where an indigenous language is spoken.
 * 23,232,391 (19.4%) people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (This can be an undercount or overcount based upon race).
 * I think in this way we can keep true to consensus on the race question and the question of importance of each number. In this way it does not appear as if one number is more legitimate than another, because it has its note stating what it represents and it lists from smallest to largest. What do you think? DataNStats (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That might work, here is a revised version in which language and ethnicity/culture are separated
 * population      =
 * -Based on identification-
 * 11,800,247 identified indigenous Mexicans (population living in an indigenous household) (9.36%).
 * 23,232,391 people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (includes Mexicans who are partially indigenous and considered mestizos) (19.4%)
 * -Based on language-
 * 865,972 people monolingual in an indigenous language (0.6%)
 * 7,364,645 people who speak an indigenous language (Including bilinguals in Spanish.) (6.1%)
 * PedroDonasco (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can agree on that with the exception of "people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (includes Mexicans who are partially indigenous and considered mestizos) (19.4%)"
 * I recommend editing that to read people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (an overcount or undercount depending on race) (19.4%)"
 * Or omitting the racial aspect of it entirely and posting:
 * people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (19.4%) DataNStats (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about as a resolution to that we just say
 * (includes Mexicans who are usually considered mestizos with varying indigenous ancestry) it should be clarified as it is also clarified on the Spanish page.PedroDonasco (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with that, as the material both you and I have cited does not make such a statement evident. That is why I suggested a neutral statement "an overcount or undercount", because if we were to use such a statement as "Mexicans with varying degrees of indigenous ancestry", then that can include up to 90% of the population based upon some genetic studies. Though it would be legitimate to an extent to make such a claim with cited genetic studies, it would be disingenuous to the topic of Indigenous Peoples of Mexico. If you are comfortable with such an approach, then I suppose we could proceed so long as genetic studies will be included in the referenced materials as well as their findings. In my opinion, however, it seems rather inappropriate to discuss this matter along those lines. That is why I have been so contentious with the question of race, because it can swing in either extreme depending upon the interpretation or cited material. It is such a grey area that in my opinion it is better to leave it away from the discussion. I am open to discussion of the matter either way. I have provided what I believe is the most appropriate representation of data through consensus between you and I. DataNStats (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be clarified just in case as that was part of the previous consensus due those with partial indigenous ancestry choosing to identify more with their indigenous identity as I have stated before. I was originally gonna remove the 20% figure as well as the 6% figure and place them somewhere else within the article but it was agreed on consensus to include the figure but specify to not lead to any misinformation. It should say that it includes people usually considered mestizos due to the governments use of the 10% figure as the indigenous population figure, and the ability for anyone to mark the box reguardless of race. I suggest that the parentheses are kept in just to clarify or at least the (includes Mexicans usually considered mestizos). I can’t agree with the blanket statement of being an over count or undercount because it’s likely not an undercount for many reasons, and I can’t agree with not specifying anything as that will lead to misinterpretation of the data. PedroDonasco (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are to include a race based note, then it must not be one sided and must include the fact that racially pure indigenous people who are counted as Mestizo are not counted as indigenous in this census based on culture. That is why I suggest the "an undercount or an overcount" statement. We could go a step further and say "although 19.4% of the population self identified as indigenous based on culture, up to 90% of Mexicans are of indigenous ancestry." What say you? DataNStats (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think it should be specified that the 20% figure includes people usually considered as mestizo but remove the partially indigenous part in the parentheses then so it says 23,232,391 people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (includes people usually considered mestizos) as some would be considered mestizos from the many sources I listed before and then add the note where it says that despite 19.5% of Mexicans identifying as indigenous based on culture, up to 90% of Mexicans have of indigenous ancestry. PedroDonasco (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is something I can agree upon, as I can provide more references on the topic. Do you have a proposed template for such a post? DataNStats (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think it should be specified that the 20% figure includes people usually considered as mestizo but remove the partially indigenous part in the parentheses then so it says 23,232,391 people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (includes people usually considered mestizos) as some would be considered mestizos from the many sources I listed before and then add the note where it says that despite 19.5% of Mexicans identifying as indigenous based on culture, up to 90% of Mexicans have of indigenous ancestry. PedroDonasco (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is something I can agree upon, as I can provide more references on the topic. Do you have a proposed template for such a post? DataNStats (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

-Based on identification- -Based on language-
 * population      =
 * 11,800,247 identified indigenous Mexicans (population in indigenous households) (9.36%).
 * 23,232,391 people who culturally self-identify as indigenous (includes Mexicans who are considered mestizos) (19.4%)
 * 865,972 people monolingual in an indigenous language (0.6%)
 * 7,364,645 people who speak an indigenous language (Including bilinguals in Spanish.) (6.1%)
 * Notes

Here is the I made for the consensus. Is this good? PedroDonasco (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you agree to this then it will be added to replace the current revision. PedroDonasco (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that will be okay. DataNStats (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be appropriate to continue any further discussion on this topic in its respective talk page, furthermore, it would be good that DataNStats commented in the Spanish talk page of said topic  as he's been involved on a content dispute with PedroDonasco on that article aswell. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * EvergreenFir I've tried to resolve this in the talk page but the other editor(s) refuse to reply, as can be seen I'm currently on my own there, I also tried to get to a middle ground similar to that the opposing editor(s) accepted before but it didn't work this time. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Mexicans, White Mexicans, and Demographics of Mexico) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Php2000 SPI
Better to have discussion here I think, the moderated form at SPI doesn't work well for back-and-forth discussion.

We don't have a technical way to set protection over an entire topic, but a contentious topic is basically what you suggested. Topics that tend to attract controversy can be designated a contentious topic by the arbitration committee. They tend to be topics where people often hold strong opinions and are often related to real-world conflicts. The most well-known contentious topic probably is the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as you can probably imagine people have strong opinions about that conflict. Others include alternative medicine, the India-Pakistan conflict, gun control, climate change, COVID-19, everything to do with American politics after 1992, and believe it or not, Wikipedia's article titles policy is a contentious topic. Administrators are granted some additional authority to impose restrictions in contentious topics, including requiring all editors in the topic to be extended-confirmed, imposing a one-revert-per-day (1RR) restriction, requiring discussion for any edit that is reverted, and banning editors from the topic under arbitration committee authority (where we would normally have to propose sanctions and develop consensus from the community first). A contentious topic designation is a tool of last resort, meaning we're expected to have tried regular discussion and enforcement first, and the process involves taking a case request to the committee, explaining what is disruptive and what we've already tried to resolve or limit it, and convince the committee that it's really necessary. It's usually a long process and it's that way on purpose, and I think we're not quite there yet in the topic of Latin American demographics. We're still basically managing with blocking the disruptive editors through normal processes, but there being many SPI cases focused within the topic I think is good evidence that we're headed in that direction. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector I see, I had no idea that a blanket protection to all articles under the same category couldn't be applied, I have put serious thought on this proposal of mine in the last days, for example new a protection level that was on the lines of 200 edits and 2 months, this because a longer wait time is a bigger deterrent to experienced vandals/sockpuppeters than the amount of edits required to get extended-confirmed (some reach 500 edits in 2 days time). I agree that we are not quite in the contentious topic area yet, specially given that the main offenders have been blocked (and its has become easy for many editors and administrators to recognize their editing patterns) and that to request auto-confirmed protection as soon as suspicions of sockpuppetry arise may be enough, specially considering that there are already administrators that keep an eye on articles on this topic. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)