This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John C PI (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 20 January 2007 (Photo of racial differences in Mexico article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:17, 20 January 2007 by John C PI (talk | contribs) (Photo of racial differences in Mexico article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Monterrey
I believe you are incorrect about IPA for Monterrey. It should not contain . sounds like this: . The Spanish <y> is pronounced . –Andyluciano 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is also supported by the article Spanish phonology – Andyluciano 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
State governments by party
Hola Alex! I guess you created Image:State governments by party.PNG. In case of Chiapas dont you think that it should be colored only in YELLOW (without blue stripes) Saludos, Abögarp 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
RE: Mexico and Central America
Hello. I'm unsure of who or what you are speaking, but I will have none of it:
(1) My edits to Central America were to correct bad English: 'sometimes' is more than sufficient to describe the state of affairs regarding usage. Stop adding inchoate verbiage to push your viewpoint.
(2) My edits to the Mexico article are based upon content in Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary about its location: what is biased about noting that it is surrounded by the entities listed? My edits also clearly indicate it is a part of the North American continent. It is also inaccurate -- if not biased -- to state that Mexico is north of Central America when some geographers include the southeastern portion of the country in Central America; your reversion (in addition to (1)) is proof-positive of your bias.
Read up on Wikiquette: if you wish to edit constructively, stop accusing others of whatever -- which you seem to have a history of. Bad edits, reverts made without discussion, or screaming that they are biased unjustifiably (all of which are also part of your pattern) will also be corrected. And if you persist in your finger-pointing, I will seek administrative sanctions against you. Please let me know if you've any questions. Corticopia 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry: you are unclear. You seem hardened in your resolve to demonstrate that you are correct in this content dispute and to exclude cited content from Misplaced Pages ... regardless of who edits. I have also added content beyond this mere dispute, yet you revert it without regard. I will not partake in your witchhunt and, thus, won't sanction your request nor participate in anything stemming from it. I will, however, engage any user regarding sensible discussions of content, which this is quickly not becoming. When you change your mind or behaviour, contact me. Corticopia 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- You have me mistaken for others, so get over that hurdle. That is also why I removed unrelated names from my talk page and will continue to.
- Your edits are still pushing a point of view that I and likely others do not share. No source has been provided to indicate that 'North America' is a region but many exist indicating otherwise: it doesn't matter if 'southern North America' is common -- it is cited and verifiable. Until then, do not remove cited matter nor the citation I've added ... which you just did. And, if you glance at Canada, you will note that it indicates that it occupies most of "northern North America"; alternatively, Northern America is sufficient. Obsurity about a term (if at all) is eliminated once it is appropriately wikified. And Méjico is what it is -- cited from that same source.Corticopia 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Given your editing behaviour, and your continued removal of cited information, I believe further discussion with you is useless. Corticopia 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Photo of racial differences in Mexico article
Hello,
I have spotted the Mexico article, and read the discussion about the photograph. As I have said in Talk:Mexico, I think the image concept is very appropiate, but also I have to say that, in my opinion, the image quality is not enough to be shown at Misplaced Pages, as other users have said in the talk page. It would be very great if you could make an image like this again, but now for example taking a photo of these people but with the same background and looking at camera, of course with an appropiate illumination. I think this would improve considerably the quality of the image.
Thank you.