Condolences
IN LOVING MEMORY OF CLAUDIA HERNÁNDEZ
(June 1982- March 2007)
You're not by my side anymore, but you'll live in my heart and in my thoughts.
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)
Yeah, im sorry man, you have to remember the good times you spent with her and not the bad times. But well, things are how they are for a reason, maybe god needed her in heaven , you gotta know that god will take care of her. The way i see it death is just the start of life man. Look after yourself holmes keep it real.
--Atrooper 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Atrooper
Hello
Sad to hear about your friend. There is a young man of twenty here, employee and neighbour, dying from lack of a new liver. Its cancer, a nasty business and of course in Honduras a transplant is out of the question but we are all affected here as one is. Anyway what I was I was going to say that you are getting a lot of keeps so if it were deleted it would be a good case for Wikipedia:Deletion review as IMO there is no consensus to delete. But lets hope the closiing admin agress with me, SqueakBox 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Alex
Alex ayudame con el infobox de San Nicolas porque esta cabron ponla tu no? Alfredocharles 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok I'm sorry man I have to talk in english then. Alfredocharles 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Alex man I pasted the history of San Nicolas in spanish but I am translating it right now I mean I won't let all that info there, I'm doing it right now, is it ok? Alfredocharles 16:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Look the article now, do you think I improved it? Alfredocharles 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Alex help! I introduced a pic of the mayor of San Nicolas but it is too big that the other sections looks bad, they are up in the text now, help me. Alfredocharles 17:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Alex I found a message about the picture I uploaded of the mayor of San Nicolas. It says it doesn't have a tag license or something, can you help me? I don't know how this works, I have never uploaded a picture not even in the spanish wikipedia. Alfredocharles 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: Mesoamerica
It may in fact be rare, but 'may be' implies rarity and adding that is verbose. Let Wikipedians assess the prevalence of the term without spoon-feeding notions that may not be in evidence.
That is not the real issue, however, it is your continual shadow-dancing and reframing of regarding regional terms that is irksome. There may be numerous models regarding (the) America(s), but there's no need to highlight what they are (even if they are nebulous) because Mesoamerica is in the Americas, Middle America, and southern North America all the same regardless of the viewpoint. There's really no need to further detail what the linked articles already say. And remember that Middle America is cited elsewhere as a cultural region (and may be others) too, so merely qualifying it as a geographical region is inaccurate and subjective. Corticopia 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- 'Occasionally' and 'sometimes' are acceptable equivalents. Regarding content in G of M, however, there's no need to overcomplicate the prior text with subjective assessments about what region the culture area is in. The goal is to describe where Mesoamerica is, not to elaborate about why it is referred to one way or another (in reference to other areas) unless it's germane to the topic (e.g., similarities in etymology). 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)~
- What? Actually, the Oxford thesaurus lists the following for 'occasionally' (in order): SOMETIMES, from time to time, (every) now and then, (every) every now and again, at times, every so often, (every) once in a while, on occasion, periodically, at intervals, irregularly, sporadically, infrequently, intermittently, on and off, off and on. 'Rarely' lists: SELDOM, infrequently, hardly (ever), scarcely, not often, once in a while, now and then, occasionally, once in a blue moon.
- Occasionally, sometimes, infrequently, uncommonly, and at times are acceptable. Corticopia 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- 'Uncommonly' is fine. Corticopia 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know you, but...
I know what it's like. :-/ I'm sorry for your loss. I know everyone says that, but still. I hope you feel better. Bsroiaadn 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And I patrol the recent changes a lot, yours came up there, and that's how I found it. Bsroiaadn 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
DRV
Well done, looks like an out of process deletion to me with the adnmin deciding to ignore the people who want to keep the article. Lets see how the DRV goes and if that fails decide what to do then, SqueakBox 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
North America
We... ese hdp de corticopia, ahora que hacemos? aunque sigamos alegando en la nueva direcion, probablemente va a parar en lo mismo... otra discusion que nunca termina. --Supaman89
- Pero tambien gran parte de los administradores, en en.wikipedia son Estadounidenses, o Canadienses, por lo tanto ya sabes hacia donde va a estar inclinada su opinion... --Supaman89 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jaja, a el y a muchos otros, pero bueno, tenemos que ganar esta, por que entre mas fuentes existan sobre dicha region, cada vez va a haber menos gentes que lo puedan negar, o no lo quieran ver, ni la union europea va a poder con nostros jajaja lol. Supaman89 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Si we, ya estaba enterado el famoso BRIMC, le neta no se por que le hacen tanto al cuento, si Mexico no se integra a ellos, jamas seran tan fuertes, digo Mexico la 13va economia mundial no muy lejana de la Canadiense... necesitan de nosotros les guste o no, ahora me meto al msn, espera Supaman89 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
For that article, the current arrangement is sufficient. If that doesn't satisfy you, I can easily counterpoint by organizing North American territories as follows:
Corticopia 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Continual sophistry aside, the current arrangement is sufficient. If you continue to push a point of view, count on a push back. Corticopia 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hay este we nomas me hace emputar, como sea oye cambiando un poco de tema, de casualidad no sabes como hacerle para que al escribir "Mexican Republic" (Republica Mexicana) te redirija al articulo de Mexico?, asi como en el articulo de gringolandia al principio tiene como 10 maneras diferentes de referirse a los EU y cada una de ellas te redirije al mismo articulo, por que como sabras este termino es bastante usado en todos lados, entonces para que al principio de la pagina de diga: "Estados Unidos Mexicanos, EUM, Republica Mexicana o simplemente Mexico, es un pais...".
- No se si me exprese claramente gg, dejame un mensaje cuando entres. Supaman89 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Osea que cuando escribas "Mexican Republic" te redirija hacia "Mexico" osea que lo identifique como otro nombre para referirse a Mexico. Supaman89 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bien hecho we, te digo eres todo un "ainstein", jaja, ahora deja escribo en el primer parrafo el nuevo nombre. Supaman89 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- We, pero para que conoscan el termino, aparte de que es un termino formal y elegante, cuantas veces no hemos oido "el Presidente de la Republica", "en el interior de la Republica", "viajara por la Republica Mexicana", etc. Como por ejemplo en el articulo de Argentina, muestran las diferentes formas de llamarla "Republica Argentina" o la "Nacion Argentina" apesar de que nadie las conoce. Supaman89 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
North America as in the single continent model
Hello. I see that an admin declared the arguements of most of the contribuotors of the AfD were baseless (actually he said "arguementless", which I'm not certain is even an English word.) So he imposed his views as "consensus" and deleted the article. I hope you pursue this in WP:DRV which will give an opportunity to review the admins action. Let me know If I can help. Edivorce 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Mexico article
Hi, I noticed you took out "with the help of the U.S." under the French Intervention heading...whether or not people like it, the biggest reason Benito was able to be victorious over the French was the help of the U.S. government. Seward, the minister of foreign affairs or such, sent word to Napoleaon III that they should back off. The U.S. also gave Juarez and his followers guns, etc. Juarez also stayed in New Orleans, when in exile. C.Kent87 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for that mix-up! I don't know how that happend. Thanks for telling me! C.Kent87 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Himno Nacional Mexicano
Hi there. Can you shed a little light on the use of "centros" to mean "the important places of the world"? My personal understanding is that "centros" is subordinate to "tierra", so that the sense is different than saying "los centros **de** la tierra", which is a different noun, though with the sense that you imply. Is it your personal interpretation or do you have a better source? Kwarizmi 14:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
North America DRV
I was sorry to see that the DRV on this article resulted in endorsing the deletion. I left a note on the closing admins talk page criticizing him for offering no elaboration whatsoever on this d ecision. I hope the rest of your work will be treated with more respect. Warm Regards. Edivorce 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Layout
Bueno tu layout, especialmente la parte de hasta abajo (if u no what I mean...), oye solo una cosa, creo que te falto poner el DF, no? por que si esta en la lista de abajo, pero no en el mapa, ya se que el DF no es un estado, pero ps esque en el mapa su espacio se ve vacio. Supaman89 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't refer to good faith legitimate edits as vandalism
Alex, please read these guidelines: WP:REVERT#Don't. This edit summary is completely inappropriate and borders on WP:UNCIVIL. My edit was not "vandalism", and I explained myself in detail on Talk:North America#Norteamérica -- subcontinente?. Please make your arguments on the talk page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, Alex. I was frustrated, and probably overreacted. Anyway...calling an edit a revert ("rv", "rvv", "revert") implies that you're undoing vandalism. In content disagreements, a detailed edit summary should be used (or at least "rv - see talk page"). But I apologize for my frustration, and thanks for the explanation you posted to the talk page; I've followed up there. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Map of Mexico
Hi, Alex, I really like the map of Mexico you just created. Congratulations again. I just noted, however, a little glitch on the map. In Political divisions of Mexico you centered the map (with <center>, something I had tried to do in Mexico myself, or letting it float at the center). The map is centered, but the labels of the states get all in the wrong places, moved far to the left. Can any thing be done to prevent that from happening?--theDúnadan 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- What version of IE are you using? I tried IE7 and I had the same problem. Maybe it is the screen resolution. --theDúnadan 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- 1200 by 800. Yeah, I don't think it is a resolution issue. I had updated IE to IE7, and I thought it would be better than IE6 and Firefox. But, I still like Firefox better. --theDúnadan 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's solved too. Thanks!--theDúnadan 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- 1200 by 800. Yeah, I don't think it is a resolution issue. I had updated IE to IE7, and I thought it would be better than IE6 and Firefox. But, I still like Firefox better. --theDúnadan 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hola
Saber girl08 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Mexico vs North and Middle America
I guess it depends on how we define "geopolitical". I considered the definition geopolitical in that it uses political borders (countries) to define it and not geophysical or physiogeographical features. True, Mexico is far more integrated economically and politically to US and Canada than to any of the Middle American countries. And it is also true that Middle America is more a cultural or linguistic region than an economical one. But I guess we understand "geopolitical" to be two different things. I hope we can solve this issue soon. --theDúnadan 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as I said in your talkpage, I kinda suspected you were using the term that way (geolocalization of states), not in the sense of what geopolitics are really about. However, I let you a msg in your page. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is my point. :) Corticopia 09:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The punctuation edit in Mexico regarding its location is acceptable. Regarding commonly (as opposed to the preferred terms of generally or usually), however, you may also be interested in this 'blog' from Stanford University regarding usage of Central/Middle America et al.: note what one commentator says about usage in Europe. More here. Anyhow, enjoy!? Corticopia 04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have read the discussion and opinions in that blog. It is interesting/sad how people with college education can confuse the terms so easily. I guess because the lack of knowledge in geography terms, and I don't blame them. Geography is one of the subjects that people tend to ignore very frequently. As one of the comments reads "Aztecs in Central America?", Jesus... About the "usage" of Central America in Europe, those are just anecdotes, since I have been told exactly the opposite by Italian, German and Swiss collegues. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 05:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The punctuation edit in Mexico regarding its location is acceptable. Regarding commonly (as opposed to the preferred terms of generally or usually), however, you may also be interested in this 'blog' from Stanford University regarding usage of Central/Middle America et al.: note what one commentator says about usage in Europe. More here. Anyhow, enjoy!? Corticopia 04:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:LMT GMT.jpg
If this is the correctly named file, are you going to replace Image:LMT GTM.jpg with it and then tag it? --Iamunknown 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was confused. The wrong named file was LMT GMT.jpg and I also uploaded it. I'm glad to see it got deleted already. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: Continent
BTW: great animated GIF of the continental models! I have moved it down, to be inline with the list of continental models and the rest of the article. I am not wholly resistant to that image upfront, but a few comments:
- (1) Antarctica is misspelled
- (2) In the 6-model, you might want to make Eurasia the lighter red (as opposed to the darker red), since it seems almost the same as Australia/Oceania, at least on this monitor
- As well, while I've added links to other Wikipedias and do not dispute the 5-/6-continental notion, these may not constitute reliable sources, so I suggest someone look for these.
- (3) You might want to add the other models in sequence.
Corticopia 00:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't agree with you on moving the map down. I created this animated map because it is the best NPOV solution, since it presents all the existing continental models, and it also presents the 7 continents model first. I have corrected the word "Antarctica" but the colors are just fine, they don't look the same. I didn't pick the colors though, I just used the ones already chosen by the original creator of the 7 continents map. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alex. Regarding Image:Continental models.gif: the highlighted areas you show for continent of Australia are not accurate; the Pacific Islands are not considered part of Australia (except for New Guinea in continental shelf models). Could you correct the map (which I think is otherwise excellent)? Thanks,--cj | talk 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Australia should include New Guinea and Tasmania only in all models; the other Pacific Islands should be made a dull grey like Antarctica in the 5 continent model. Just on the 5 continent model, would it be possible to include a version with Australia (which is also named in such models). Thanks,--cj | talk 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is somewhat selective: other continents are sometimes reckoned to not include nearby islands too, only the mainlands (e.g., British Isles - Europe, Greenland -- (North) America, Madagascar - Africa), so such a 'greying' should not be limited to Australia/Oceania. Otherwise ...Corticopia 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have commented on the Continent talk page, and will hereafter do so there. Corticopia 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The map is simply perfect
Quería felicitarle por solucionar el entuerto.
I am sure the map is the best option, because it shows the geographical visions which fusion Europa and Asia and divide America, and the anthropology version which eliminates Antarctica, and, of course, the traditional version and the yankee one.
Except in english media i had not seen America divided, never, at all. I suppose that POV is very offensive with the americans, but with people like you its easier to remove the wrongs and lies.
¡Cuídate amigo!
- Thank you. I also think it is the best NPOV solution. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of maps, please see the comments in Monterrey's Talk page. Your map of the metro area requires a small change to add two municipalities that can be sourced as part of the metro area but are not in the map. It would be helpful if you could make the change. Greetings! Hari Seldon 16:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Alex
K pex we, tanto tiempo sin verte, oye queria preguntarte algo, no sabes como hacerle para poner una imagen de en.wikipedia en es.wikipedia sin tener que volverla a subir a commons en ese idioma? Supaman89 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Si vdd, se me hace medio ridiculo tener qeu subir la misma imagen dos veces solamente por que es para otro idioma, ah pero bueno, nomas queria saber por que alomejor y si habia una manera nomas que yo no sabia, pero ya vi que aparentemente no, como sea nos vemos. Supaman89 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Your help is needed
As the senior Graphic Designer Barnstar editor from Monterrey, I would appreciate your help in article Clásico Regiomontano. As someone from Monterrey, you cannot pretend not to be interested, even if you don't like soccer. You know how important this article is for the people of Monterrey. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a single picture. Perhaps you can help? Hari Seldon 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- thank you! Hari Seldon 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Those images of people wearing the jerseys would be a good beginning. I was also thinking about having the two logos facing each other with a "vs." sign in the middle. That should be pretty free of copyrights. Finally, perhaps pictures of inside the stadium during the Clásico, but of course, we would have to wait until the next Clásico to take those pictures...
- Thank you!
- Hari Seldon 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- That table was great! I just corrected one small mistake. Do you cheer for Rayados? hehehe... BTW, the MMA template is awsome! Congratulations! Hari Seldon 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you've definetly found my weak-spot. But, overall, I think the article is getting better, and the new image adds a lot. It is awsome! Thanks! Hari Seldon 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Clásico 28 was suspended at the 7th minute because the players stopped playing and started fighting against each other. The referee could not calm them down and decided to suspend the match. I cannot find more detail and that is why I have not included it in the notable Clásicos section, but definetly, I think it would be good to add it if more information can be found. Hari Seldon 11:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you want to add a "Cerro de la Silla" image to the template (i.e., on top of the list of municipalities, like enveloping it)... Or perhaps on the left hand side an image of the "Faro del Comercio", and a green laser beam as background on the list of municipalities? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hseldon10 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
- Ok, sorry about not signing the last one. Anyway, the table you created for Clásico Regiomontano may serve as an infobox for derby matches. Indeed, perhaps you might want to pursue this idea further? Hari Seldon 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Monterrey Map
Como usuario de la Wikipedia en Español te comento que se apreciaría tu ayuda trasladando mapa de Monterrey que creaste a la versión en español.--Ponalgoyya 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Creo que no me explique, el mapa ya existe y esta en la versión en español, pero un mapa al cual se le pueden hacer click en los links como aparece en la plantilla que mencione sería ideal.--Ponalgoyya 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Man, gotta ask you for something once again
Do you know how to create a template en the Spanish wikipedia?, is it:
- "plantilla:xxxxxx"
- "templante:xxxxxx"
- or is it something else? Supaman89 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- chido. Supaman89 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am finished with this revert war, but please realize that the article says "first time since 1929 that an opposition party defeated the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) at the national presidential race". It implies that in 1929 the PRI was the ruling party and it was defeated, neither is correct. It is up to you to keep it that way. I am not going to revert you anymore. Have a good day. --FateClub 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use policy
Re your edit summary at [1]: You can not use fair use images on templates. It is strictly forbidden per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Only free license images may be used on templates. I am reverting your re-insertion of the images into the templates. Please do not re-add them as doing so is a violation of policy. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mexico
I looked through the history, and if I ignore the edits by usernames I see 5 or 6 IP users who have been reverted in the last 24 hours. I don't have a lot of experience with semiprotection, but the rule of thumb I learned is 15 to 20 anonymous vandals per day as a threshold for semiprotection. I will let someone else with more experience look at it on WP:RFPP, in case they come to a different conclusion. By the way, why did you pick me to ask? CMummert · talk 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mexican states by governing party
Hi Alex:
I'm looking at your map of Mexican states by governing party (the party of the governor in office) and I am pretty sure there is a mistake: Puebla is currently governed by Mario Marin (PRI) and thus should be green, Tlaxcala currently governed by Héctor Ortiz (PAN) should be in blue.
Thanks for creating the map, Laura
- Oh, I'm sorry for that mistake, it was unintentional. I think I clicked the wrong state and colored the wrong way. I'll change it now. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 06:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Bro, check this out!!
Man, I just did this new template for Mexico, to put it in my user page, what do you think?, it's nice isn't it? Supaman89 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This user comes from the United Mexican States. And they're proudly Mexican. |
We, aqui esta con el logo que me diste... como lo vez. Supaman89 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This user comes from the United Mexican States And he/she's proudly Mexican. |
- Ps la neta ami en lo personal, me parece como k el segundo se distorciona un poco al encojer la imagen, apare el primero tiene como que un efecto en el fondo, que hace que se vea como resaltado, pero bueno chido por tu logo.
- Oye we, cambiando un poco el tema, vez que en mi pagina de usuario, la tablas estan a la izquierda como las tuyas? sabes como las puedo pasar hacia la derecha, y poner el texto en la izquierda? yo se que parece sencillo, pero le intente como 3 veces y se me descuadra todo gg. Supaman89 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Latin America
About the article Latin America, you wrote to me:
Hello Sebasbronzini, it is highly unusual to highlight the lowest rank in a table like the one you edited in the article Latin America. Specially when your edits are not helping to the better understanding of the table. The bold text confuses the highest ranks. Please do not highlight the lowest ranks anymnore. (Highlights in this paragraph are mine)
Hola, AlexCovarrubias. No estoy de acuerdo con el punto de vista de usted. Yo opino que los máximos y mínimos en la tabla pueden ayudar a ver en un golpe de vista los extremos y los rangos de variación en los parámetros económicos de nuestra región. Por ejemplo. me parece ilustrativo el curioso hecho de que los máximos están repartidos entre varios países, mientras que los mínimos corresponden casi todos a Haití. Por el momento voy a resaltar las dos columnas que faltan (el mínimo en el índice de desigualdad y el máximo en IDH), pero me gustaría plantear este tema en la página de discusión. Sebasbronzini 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I still think the same. The highest rank and the lowest rank are both just highlighted using bold text, which is confuse. Haiti holds the lowest rank in each category, that also confuses the table, since all its statistics are highlighted with bold text. I think I can fix it by coloring the cell in green for the highest and red for the lowest. Thank you. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Your coloring is O.K. for me. Time will tell whether oter contributors aggree with the new changes. Thanks. Sebasbronzini 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Your Block
Hello Alex. I noticed you recently asked a friend to post a message for you on NishKid's Talkpage. There is no problem with that, but I need to tell you that he is recovering from surgery, and he is not availible at this time. If you would like to request to be unblocked, put {{unblock|REASON}} here on your talkpage. BTW, you can still edit your talkpage, if you didn't know. RyGuy 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- OMG, I didn't know that, I'm gonna leave a message. Thanks. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I was unaware that you were already unblocked. I noticed that you said that you didn't know that NishKid was recovering, and you told me to pass on sympathy. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the only reason I know he has had surgery is because he has a message on his userpage. I don't know him in "real life" if that's what you thought, so I don't have the ability to communicate with him at the moment either. RyGuy 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't notice. Thanks anyway for telling me. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I was unaware that you were already unblocked. I noticed that you said that you didn't know that NishKid was recovering, and you told me to pass on sympathy. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the only reason I know he has had surgery is because he has a message on his userpage. I don't know him in "real life" if that's what you thought, so I don't have the ability to communicate with him at the moment either. RyGuy 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)
"Vandalism"
Other users may place tags on sections in good faith; calling them vandalism does not justify their removal. Please see the policy for what is and is not vandalism. Disagreeing with a tag does not mean it's vandalism. Kafziel Talk 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alex. First things first, keep calm! :-).
Basically you've done the right thing. Everything on that list is now irrefutably referenced!
Seraphim Whipp 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, almost. It's getting better. But the source Alex formatted still isn't specific enough; if Farmanesh wants to know what pages the information is on, we need to be able to provide that. Or find a different source. Kafziel Talk 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- But Farmanesh was requesting that the sources be deleted! There's simply no need for that, not when pages references can be found; there's no deadline on wikipedia (and yay for that ;-) ). The references are present all the way through now so at least no OR tags or other such can be slapped on it. Hope all goes well!
- Seraphim Whipp 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I honestly believe something's wrong with this system. Why the system give "that much power" to a user that is not even really interested in the subject? I mean, he's not. If he was interested, he could easily go to the library and read the book, he didn't show any willingness to actually read the sources, to check the info. You know what is the most ridiculous? Even with the last 2 references added by me (with pages...), he was not willing to read them, he focused on the remaing two without "pages". He's clearly not interested... nor assuming good faith. Thanks God I was assisted by two marvellous persons. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know. I had some trouble myself recently, where an admin called me a dumbass. I reacted in a way which made me lose the moral high ground and I regret that severely. It ended up with me leaving an angry message on his talk page, him reverting it, me reverting it etc. Unfortunately, because of the way I acted, I was the one that got blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR (which I didn't :-( ) and the admin involved wasn't punished in any way! I did learn from that experience, so I guess I know what it feels like to have the system wrong you. However helping you out today at least helped me see that there are some nice people around. :-)
- Seraphim Whipp 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Opinion
I had read the article of NICs and the previous discussions about a month ago, but had decided not to intervene in the ongoing debates. So, let me tell you what I think about the matter, on a one-to-one talk. As a recent graduated economist, I find NICs (in general) well defined, but not specified. To be honest, I have never found a comprehensive list of NICs. Most definitions would say "the following countries are included...", or "some examples are...", or "the group includes countries such as..." but that means that the listed countries are actually a subset of the NICs and that some NICs countries were not listed. And, like you have pointed out in the article, some authors include or exclude some countries from the list. (I've seen articles including Argentina, Venezuela, Chile and Israel).
Moreover, the issue is a little more blurred that what it seems. NICs, as the name implies, usually refer to countries that industrialized recently[2], (i.e. newly[3]), in contrast to countries that had industrialized [not recently, but long before] since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In other words, the definition of NICs is not of development status per se. Let me explain, if NICs is defined as a mere mid-development status (i.e. more developed than developing nations but not yet as developed as "developed" nations), then, by argument, the list should include all Eastern European countries, and irrefutably, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay, which in spite of the endless Latin American discussions about "my country is better than yours", are truly as industrialized, with lower poverty rates than both Mexico and Brazil, higher IDH, and less income inequality (i.e. all combined producing a larger middle class). I really didn't want to get into this topic given the extensive debate we all had in Talk:Mexico regarding the "standard of living" of Argentina vs. Mexico.
One of the reasons why Russia or Poland are not included as a NIC was, obviously, because they are not newly industrialized: they had industrialized long before, concurrently with Western Europe. However, because of social/political and economic reasons their status is now, arguably, lower [in macroeconomic averages] than say Mexico's or Korea's. And, you might be surprised, but so was the case of Argentina and Uruguay, which industrialized in the late nineteenth century. In fact, Argentina was considered one of the tenth richest countries at the beginning of the 20th century, and the Argentine peso was traded alongside the dollar at New York, some of the reasons why it had attracted so many immigrants. (At one time, Europeans would debate on whether to immigrate to New York or Buenos Aires). However, because of corruption, military dictatorships, and the like, the economy stagnated, to the point of now having an economy in many aspects similar to that of other Latin American countries, and definitely not developed like Europe. I think I downloaded a case study of Argentina by The Economist, if you wish I can send you some of the files.
My point is: as long as we redefine NICs as a generalized middle-status country, instead of the original "recently industrialization" status, we will always get in trouble because many other countries, which are usually not reckoned as NICs do have a middle-status economy (or even a better status than most middle-status countries). The UN, for example, only lists 3 "top-tier" newly industrialized countries (the original "tigers", and in which the term NIC is synonymous of "newly developed countries"), whereas Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey and Venezuela are all grouped as "semi-industrialized" countries.
I don't know man, I checked the online references you provided, but a comprehensive list is not included in them (besides the phrase "the group includes...", which again implies some other countries are not listed. And, unfortunately, I didn't find the books in my library. If it were up to me, I would simply rewrite the article and define NICs as they usually are: recently [over the last four decades] industrialized countries, which would by default exclude all the rest (i.e. Argentina, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc.). Also, given the ambiguity in the list of countries, I would be open to include other countries if a source is provided.
--the Dúnadan 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, NIC is NIE. The whole argument evolves around "newly", the defining characteristic of all. To put it in other words, NICs are a subgroup of "middle-status country" (not developed but more developed than developing) that contains [only?] those countries that are recently industrialized. This defining characteristics ("recently" i.e. over the last four or five decades [4]) is not included in Newly industrialized country, thus leading to confusion, as to why other countries that have all the other characteristics listed, are not included as NICs.--the Dúnadan 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, if you had found sources that include Argentina and Venezuela, why aren't they already included in the article? --the Dúnadan 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not wish to get into a debate, but I find the exclusion, based on dates, somewhat arbitrary. But if it works, recent links do include Argentina: [5], [6], [7], Chile [8] and Israel [9], [10]. Since I have access to journal academic databases automatically through my job network, you might not be able to access some of them. If that happens, let me know, and I will find an alternative link, or I can copy-paste the specific paragraph that cites them.
- Oh, by the way, recent links also continue to include the four "tigers" as NICs. Call it ambiguity on their part, or Academic rigour on mine, but I think they should also be included, regardless of the fact that some sources think they are already developed. --the Dúnadan 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, if you had found sources that include Argentina and Venezuela, why aren't they already included in the article? --the Dúnadan 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Please calm down. I've been very patient so far, but if you can't discuss the situation without being rude, I will block you for personal attacks. I don't want to do that, so please stop accusing Farmanesh of wrongdoing. Sarcastic remarks like this do not help. You're not going to win this by attacking him or questioning his motives. You only have two options: provide a page number or accept the fact that there will be dispute tags on the article until someone else provides a page number. There is no other option, and if you continue the personal attacks I will have no choice but to stop you. Kafziel Talk 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)