User talk:WilyD/Archives/2007/March

North America
Sorry WilyD. I have an automatic option to mark all my edits as minors, I didn't intend to mark this particular one as minor. I edited the page because I provided a lot of sources that cite that prove that Mexico is not often included in Central America. It is frustrating that you guys don't wanna accept it. However I'm gonna revert the edit, ok? AlexCovarrubias 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wily... I'm very frustrated, I don't know what else to do. I have explained all my reasons why Mexico is not considered Central American. I, as a Mexican and Latin American, am well aware of the region history and politics. Help me out Wily, I am positive I have proved all my points... Mexico can't be just listed as CA just because some others say so...

- When the UN geoscheme was created? I'm concerned about this because it seems that it doesn't reflect today's geopolitical regions. However I am very sure that Mexico was included in CA just because they couldn't leave it alone as in the most used definitions... Have you noticed how they describe North America? US, Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean... C'mon even this guy wrote that "Middle America means Mexico, CA and Caribbean". SO?? - Historically Mexico has never been considered CA. Mexico seeks independence, CA provincies didn't want to join the new republic, they preffered to be independent. They created a CA union of provinces and only one Mexican state agreed to join, Chiapas. But the Mexican government convinced the Chiapas government to join Mexico again, and they did. - Geopolitically, well it is the same. Although both Mex and CA are not enemies, but certainly CA and Mexicans are very different. - Geographically most of the publications of the WORLD, consider Mexico as part of the region North America or at least outside Central America, for two main reasons. One being that not all the educational systems of every country uses the "two american continents" teaching, and they divide America (continent) in North, Central and South America. The second reason is that although some geographers consider the region to begin in the Ithsmus of Tehuantepec, that only represents 10-15% of all Mexico, not enough to categorise the whole country geographically as CA.

I still cannot understand why you guys keep saying that "a lot of sources say Mexico is CA" and you have not provided the verifiable citations. At least Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe, China, India and Japan does not consider Mexico as Central American... so only because under one US/Canadian POV Mexico is Central American we are gonna list Mexico in CA? That seems very biased. I'm very aware that some Americans and Canadians like the term "North America" only to mean US and Canada only, I know it because I have been told and I have read about it. However, this is an encylopedia and the truth most prevail: North America is also a term that includes Mexico.

I'm not trying to exclude the term Northern America. All I'm trying to do is not to list Mexico in Central America for all the reasons I have cited. You guys can have the term listed, just do not list Mexico in CA. It is insulting to both Mexicans and Central Americans and, it is not the most extended meaning of the term. Help me Wily, I'm really frustrated. What else can I do to convince you guys? It seems nothing is enough. Respectfully I think you guys should understand that not only the US/Canada POV should prevail. Well, I know not all American or Canadians think the same, I know it because most of my friends are from USA, that is why I also know this is a convervative, biased POV. Please, be reasonable. At least, let's categorise alphabetically. =( A very sad, AlexCovarrubias 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is thank you. You made me feel that at least I'm being heard, I had the impression of being ignored. I agree not to include regions in the table, it sounds more logical to treat the issue in a separate subarticle. But I still find it, let's say weird, to include Mexico in Central America just because some publications says part of it is in Central America. Most of the publications I have consulted (only in english) list the 7 countries of Central America and add as a side note that some geographers consider 5 states of Mexico as being in Central America. I have to be really honest, that anonimous IP guy have not cite enough sources that prove Mexico is entirely considered CA. However, I'm aware that some publications treat Mexico as CA (not that I like nor I consider it smart), and we should note that in the article, but I'm concerned about this guy wanting to present this fact as the most extended, when I have proved it is not. I would never misstranslante an article in other language I can speak only to prove my points. The only countries I am 100% sure does not treat Mexico as CA, are the ones I already cited. Thanks again! AlexCovarrubias 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! I strongly encourage you to reconsider your claim of original research (at least towards me) and restore the prior content/context I added at North America.  Glance at the referenced Encarta articles about North and Central America in Spanish (which I didn't add) and, perhaps coupled with an online translation, you will observe that my edits hark of the content you removed, and which corrected for omissions/POV-pushing by the person who added the references.  In the end, if you think that this is original or in error, the Spanish Encarta references shouldn't be included due to nuance possible misinterpretation.  Thanks! Corticopia 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are somewhat wrong -- I am just updating and providing context for the content/links already there RE Encarta and trying to allow for a neutral perspective. My intepretation is no less original than what is already there.  I am not disputing what are and not continents (and was taught in youth that there are usually seven), but I am fully aware that others believe this to not be so (e.g., one continent): the Spanish word may have a nuanced meaning, but it is what it is.  As well, definitions do differ: they are not always defined by number, sometimes islands are included and sometimes they are not, I even recall my recent volume of the Oxford English Dictionary skirting (or addressing?) the issue in its continent entry by indicating "North and South America" among them.


 * If the main issue is in translating and interpreting foreign language references, then they shouldn't be included at all and the Spanish Encarta refs be removed. Otherwise, they promote confusion.  Thanks! Corticopia 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand but don't completely agree: again, I am merely trying to capture the essence of the references included ... and better than it is currently. I guess I will have to accept (in this instance) vagueness and imprecision.  However, take a look/weigh in at Mexico, where some editors seem to take exception to including the country in Middle America despite a number of citations/definitions to the contrary -- Merriam-Webster, CIA.  Thanks again. Corticopia 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! OK. :) Corticopia 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Would you care to review and comment on this article? Thanks! Corticopia 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually, I have nominated it for deletion (it's a fork) -- please note that the sources listed do not support the content.  Please read and weight in.  Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corticopia (talk • contribs) 10:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Sorry -- habit. Corticopia 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again ...
Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And elsewhere ...
If you're willing, can you please peruse/edit the intro for South America (also see the talk page)? The detail about it being a subcontinent was not added by me (and is not offensive per se), but I did tweak it to clearly indicate what prevails in English (and previously added slight detail in the 'Geography' section about America, which is where this information might be more appropriate). It needs another set of eyes, and perhaps a treatment similar to that of its northern counterpart? Merci! Corticopia 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there! When you get a moment, can you PLEASE weigh in regarding 'Mexico', specifically the first few lines regarding its location and the propriety of mentioning that it is in Middle America?  Please see the talk page: to make a long story short, it was previously agreed to be brief in the intro but to accommodate all various points of view in the geo section (middle of Americas > North America > Middle America).  The discussion has since mushroomed (and I might be guilty for part of that) and I don't know where it's going.  This may also be related, as you may recall, to recent edits later in that same section regarding Central America, with implications elsewhere. Corticopia 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad
Please use edit summary properly. Espacially when you are having disputed edits like this and other person have given lots of comments. I owe you a Oppose if you ever apply for WP:RFA. --- ALM 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Issue that are under mediation and each vote result in clear 50/50 division, edit summaries do help. It is not a clear cut resolve matter. --- ALM 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wish to know your stand
Hello, may I know what is your stand about picture on Muhammad page. I only want that no picture goes no the top because it wrongly reflect the tradition of calligraphy and not displaying his pictures. I have references for that. You have previously said that you do not mind to remove the picture from the top? Is that right or I misunderstand you. ? --- ALM 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Help with arbitration User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad material. --- ALM 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious force
I found this edit of yours very disappointing, both in the manner of its removing, but also with the edit reason given. Please do not unnecessarily insult editors and/or their contributions in this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fictitious_force&diff=111914806&oldid=111905399

WolfKeeper 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed strawpolls
Sorry, we accidentally started two parallel straw-polls for the same purpose simultaneously. ALM has now removed his to merge it with the other at Talk:Muhammad/images. Would you mind repeating your vote there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you WilyD for your support. I thought initally that you are stubborn like few. But very happy to know your more. -:) --- ALM 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

American
I'm afraid your most recent comment will only inflame him more. The line has no place there and he knows it, you don't need to dignify his actions by proving the statement wrong. Doing that may just spark another tedious discussion about what "America" means.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism by country
I need to be assured first that the edit war won't start up again once I unprotect the page. That's why admins protect pages, to stop edit wars. I recommend that you propose your idea on the talk page first, and make sure there's a consensus. Then I can unprotect the page. Khoikhoi 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I count six total reverts from Pejman, five from you, and no discussion about it on the talk page. I think that matches Edit war. Anyways, feel free to work on the article in your sandbox for the time being. I'm not endorsing Pejman's version; I just protected the version that was there what I got there. To be honest, I haven't even read what you wrote. It doesn't matter what it was because there was still an edit war, which justified the page protection. If you have a new idea for the Iran section, leave a note on Pejman's talk page asking him what he thinks. Try to come to a compromise. Khoikhoi 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit history of the page, I see both of you explaining your reverts in the edit summaries. However, it should be done on the talk page instead. The article will remain locked until a consensus is reached. If you've offered to resolve this, leave a note on Pejman's talk page. See WP:DR for more info. Khoikhoi 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

References for North America
I copied verbatim the references into Talk:North America. I understand your concern, that references should be provided and be accessible for all editors in the appropriate Talk pages. Still, I found it somewhat inappropriate simply to revert and say the claims were "highly dubious", just because the references to a true claim you might not be aware of were found in the wrong place. Cheers, -- the D únadan 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Ziusudra 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm I'm not really sure I need to be warned about removing vandalism from articles ... WilyD 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * --Actually you DO need to be warned (see "Hollywood North" below) - Donteatyellowsnow


 * Well, it was an error of mine. I apologize for the disconcerting effect it must have had on your equanimity.  I believe it has something to do with VandalProof being refreshed; or perhaps I just blundered.   Peace.  --Ziusudra 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it was an URL typo, there is the correct link: http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.asp?id=3744 JC 14:15, 15 March 2007 (PST)


 * Am I missing something? I don't see either of the words "continent" or "subcontinent" on that page. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill James book
Hi, I noticed that you deleted a reference to the self-published book "Making Sense of Bill James' Statistical Nonsense" in the Bill James article. I agree that the book itself is not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, but I would argue that it's notable enough to be included in this article. It's the only book-length retort to his work that I know of, and I think it's important to note. What do you think about reverting the edits? Rmj12345 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what about not deciding its notability in the baseball world and simply noting that a book-length criticism of James' works has been self-published? Rmj12345 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks! Rmj12345 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Four points
Hi. I keep seeing references to your "four points". I've looked in Talk:Muhammad/Mediation and archives, Talk:Muhammad/images, and Talk:Muhammad and archives. Heck there is even a section header mentioning it, but I can't seem to find 'it'. Could you point it out to me? I admit that trying to review too much of the discussion at any one time makes me cross-eyed (along with other physical symptoms) so I could have simply missed it. Shenme 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

WARNING: Edit warring is harmful. Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version," even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. - Donteatyellowsnow 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In fairness to WilyD, it should be noted that the accusations listed above are baseless and should be removed. WilyD reverted wholesale POV changes a total of three times at the Hollywood North article. At no time did WilyD "continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content", nor did he cross the 3RR "line". Please review the edit history of that article as context for this matter. --Ckatz chat spy  22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran
I trust you mean the RfC on Iran? You're welcome, but there seems to be a barrier of unreasonable opposition to adding the country.--Mantanmoreland 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think outrageous that there is no section on Iran. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.--Mantanmoreland 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasoning of the people opposing Iran strikes me as especially mendacious. The fact that Kurds etc are not a race strictly speaking is beside the point. Perhaps it is a definitional/semantic issue, one that should be pursued.--Mantanmoreland 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(response on my page, just to make it consistent)

RE: Continent
Hi there. When you get a moment, can you PLEASE weigh in at Talk:Continent? I really don't know what this editor is trying to prove. Thanks. Corticopia 10:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in; I've commented over there. I think you and I have similar perspectives but are approaching it differently.  Anyhow, I hope this resolves fairly quickly and rather effortlessly.  Thanks again!  :) Corticopia 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)