| Revision as of 17:47, 5 March 2007 editAlexCovarrubias (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,393 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:33, 5 March 2007 edit undoHusond (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers36,809 edits Re. Not spamNext 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) | ||
| == Re. Not spam == | |||
| Please accept my most sincere condolences for your loss. Regarding the talk page notices, I understand that you did it in good faith, but still it qualifies as spam. AFD discussions are not to be advertised this way, they're supposed to have a natural income of participants who directly access ] instead of seeing notices in related articles. Besides, all users from all areas are entitled to give their opinion, not just those who are prone to read the talk pages that you choose or find relevant. Spam is very frowned upon and is contrary to Misplaced Pages's natural consensus building process. Best regards, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:33, 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)
Re. Not spam
Please accept my most sincere condolences for your loss. Regarding the talk page notices, I understand that you did it in good faith, but still it qualifies as spam. AFD discussions are not to be advertised this way, they're supposed to have a natural income of participants who directly access WP:AFD instead of seeing notices in related articles. Besides, all users from all areas are entitled to give their opinion, not just those who are prone to read the talk pages that you choose or find relevant. Spam is very frowned upon and is contrary to Misplaced Pages's natural consensus building process. Best regards, Húsönd 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)