| Revision as of 17:28, 5 March 2007 editCesarB (talk | contribs)Administrators14,429 edits please stop← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:32, 5 March 2007 edit undoAlexCovarrubias (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,393 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::About Mesoamérica, I was frustrated with the whole discussion and continuous reverts on Middle America (disambiguation), and I was afraid we were heading towards another edit war, and I spoke hastily to Corticopia. What I meant, is that there are two points of view (POV) which can be backed up with sources. I had the impression that both of you were trying to overrule the each other arguments with sources, where a middle ground could have been found. Moreover, I believe that sources should be classified or qualified: not all sources are equally valid, and one source versus a million sources will probably be best qualified as "infrequently this is the case". That was my issue with Mesoamerica. The geopolitical use of the term, while valid and sourced, is infrequent, in that Mesoamerica is an anthropological term first, and then a geopolitical term. By not using "qualifiers" (or adjectives) we give the impression that both definitions are equally used in synonymity. | ::About Mesoamérica, I was frustrated with the whole discussion and continuous reverts on Middle America (disambiguation), and I was afraid we were heading towards another edit war, and I spoke hastily to Corticopia. What I meant, is that there are two points of view (POV) which can be backed up with sources. I had the impression that both of you were trying to overrule the each other arguments with sources, where a middle ground could have been found. Moreover, I believe that sources should be classified or qualified: not all sources are equally valid, and one source versus a million sources will probably be best qualified as "infrequently this is the case". That was my issue with Mesoamerica. The geopolitical use of the term, while valid and sourced, is infrequent, in that Mesoamerica is an anthropological term first, and then a geopolitical term. By not using "qualifiers" (or adjectives) we give the impression that both definitions are equally used in synonymity. | ||
| ::--] 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | ::--] 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == North America (Americas) == | |||
| ] Your contributions history shows that you have been '''aggressively cross-posting''' in order to influence ]. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice"<sup>]</sup>, such cross-posting should adhere to specific ]. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking<sup>]</sup>. It is best not to ], and instead respect Misplaced Pages's principle of ]-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.<!-- Template:Canvass --> --] 19:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the advice. However, please note that the AfD nominator editor (Corticipia), asked for comments and votes in the articles ] and ]. Have you done something about this? It is important to note that the Americas as a single continent is a model taught in Latin America and some parts of Europe and Asia, so, it is important that Latin voters know about this issue and express their free vote. ]] <sup><font size="1" color="black">]</font></sup> 15:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both articles are obviously related to the article in question; you are spamming across several articles unrelated to the article in question. Not only that, but you are explicitly spamming only across articles where you believe people have a specific opinion on the issue. Read ]; what you are doing is explicitly listed there as not acceptable on the three criteria. Please stop. --] 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Spam == | |||
| Please do not spam article talk pages in order to attract selected participants to ]. Thank you.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:32, 5 March 2007
IN LOVING MEMORY OF CLAUDIA HERNÁNDEZ
(1982-2007)
You will always be in my heart
I don't have the time and I'm not in the mood for discussions. I lost a very special person just 1 day ago. I will be absent from editing or creating new articles since I'm very sad and kinda depressed. If I don't reply soon is because of this. Thanks.
Message
- Man I'm very sorry for your lost, sometimes is funny how life is, isn't it, a couple of hours ago, we were laughing and now, you're devastated by the death of one of your relatives (I'm guessing), anyways, I'll sure keep an eye on that discussion, hope you'll be back soon, take care bro, peace out. Supaman89 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- My condolences to you, my friend. Hari Seldon 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am deeply sorry for your loss.
- About Mesoamérica, I was frustrated with the whole discussion and continuous reverts on Middle America (disambiguation), and I was afraid we were heading towards another edit war, and I spoke hastily to Corticopia. What I meant, is that there are two points of view (POV) which can be backed up with sources. I had the impression that both of you were trying to overrule the each other arguments with sources, where a middle ground could have been found. Moreover, I believe that sources should be classified or qualified: not all sources are equally valid, and one source versus a million sources will probably be best qualified as "infrequently this is the case". That was my issue with Mesoamerica. The geopolitical use of the term, while valid and sourced, is infrequent, in that Mesoamerica is an anthropological term first, and then a geopolitical term. By not using "qualifiers" (or adjectives) we give the impression that both definitions are equally used in synonymity.
- --theDúnadan 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)