User talk:FateClub

re Image

That graph is misleading because it puts together data collected using different methods and approaches, and as such it cannot reflect actual trends of public opinion. The list of polls contains more information because it lists the provenance of the data, which is as important as the data itself because it allows readers to judge whether they trust a given source or not.

I'm all for making easier to the readers to understand the material, but the way you did it is not an appropriate way to analize data. That's why I suggested to clump all polls from a single source together in one graph, for instance. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data has to be comparable in the first place in order to justify putting it in a graph. The poll data on that list is not for the reasons I mentioned above. Your graph as it stands may be misunderstood as reflecting changes in voting preferences, which is of course not the case. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 19:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken :) FateClub

Re: List of Mexican billionaires

I mean for you to wait a few minutes until I finished writing my arguments in the article's talk page, and then read what I had to say for reasons for my revert. Sorry I wasn't fast enough :)

By the way, fellow editors are always welcome to my talk page, and you are too. Hari Seldon 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha... it was all about timing. You got me confused ("which talk page is he talking about... could it be... this one?!) Sorry, I'm really fast sometimes. --FateClub 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spic (slur)

Of course it's untrue; the article sets out a number of theories that have been proposed, and discusses them. It could do so more fully, and that would be a useful thing for you to do. Removing mention of a theory because it's false isn't. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what part of what I said above was unclear? Why do you still think that deleting the paragraph is more useful than adding a clearer account of the theory in question? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, you seem to be depending upon a distinction between an assumption and a theory which is the wrong way round; the Wikipedia term is correct, the source is sloppy. Secondly, I don't know how many times I can say this, but: you're arguing that the article isn't clear enough about the status of this theory — so why not make it clearer? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining common errors is of course part of what an article should do. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore the article needs to be................ improved.......................... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people simply chop out chunks of text that need improvement rather than improving them. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, if you can't discuss the actual case, but can only make your point by silly references to "what grandma says", it's clear that your position is untenable, and you're continuing to argue simply because you can't bear to give in. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, AGF. Misconceptions and false theories do have places in articles (we even have articles devoted to them — think of all the articles on religions, on the Flat Earth Society, on phlogiston, etc.) — we just have to give sources to show that they're really held by people, and then describe them accurately and explain (giving sources) what experts say is wrong with them. We're not allowed to do that with religions, in fact, because the NPoV approach has its limits unfortunately, but we can certainly do it here. The article doesn't do it well, at the moment, which is where you can improve it by editing that paragraph to make things clearer. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was misleading; I meant that I was going to AGF.

The problem was that, after removing the paragraph (rather than adding {{fact}} to it) because it had no source, I explained its source — but you still wanted to delete it rather than improving it, even though your arguments were all to do with the improvements that are needed. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to wonder if the problem is with your understanding of the English; what do you take "theory" to mean? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that sounded hostile; it was meant very straightforwardly &mdash things that you've said imply that you're understanding the term "theory" non-standardly, and if that's true it might be the source of at least part of this disagreement. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A theory is simply an explanatory hypothesis; the notion that "spic" comes from "hispanic" is an atymological theory. It's a false theory, of couyrse, but a theory nonetheless. Why do you think that it isn't? And if you don't think that it isn't, why do you object to the article saying that it is? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box office bombs ...

I suggest we just ignore McMillan from here on out. He's obviously just going to keep on spewing his malarkey as long as we keep replying to him, it isn't as if we're convincing him of squat, and I'm sure we're coming off just as argumentative as he's being. I've said as much in the article. Regards, RGTraynor 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Belkin

I suggest you remove categories "Russian Mexicans" and "English Mexicans". Belkin did not have Russian or English citizenships. It is my habit to write first to a contributor before removing data myself. Best!--Healkids 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:List of Argentine Americans

It was not removing Santaolalla that I considered vandalism. I was removing some Martin G. Prego from the list, added minutes before you removed Santaolalla. I had an older version of my Watchlist, and didn't realize of your edit when I undid the anon's edit. I guess you didn't see that part of my edit either. Nevermind, I it's fixed now. Good wiking, --Mariano(t/c) 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Marino

Hello, you recently nominated Antonio Marino to the Articles for Deletion process when the article was probably uncontroversial. AfD requires volunteer work on the part of others, and there is usually a backlog of requests which hinders careful analysis of each nomination. Please consider the speedy deletion or proposed deletion processes first in the future, as recommended by the overall deletion policy. Thank you. Potatoswatter 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sexo, amor y otras perversiones

While still not a sysop, and probably won't be one in any forseeable future, I just moved the page back, over the redirect. Thanks for telling me I erred! --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Belkin #2

Thanks for your note. I am not a sociologist but I have spoken to one who assures me that your argument can not be used universally but only to certain gropus (like large minorities) such as Mexican-Americans (as you state) or African-Americans which have, as a group, powerful cultural idiosincracies in the countries they live. I respectfuly suggest that you look into the accepted norms for group divisions. In any case, I will not engage in further debate, my norm is to provide well researched advise and hope, for Wikipedia's sake, that it will be accepted and if not, so be it! Best regards.--Healkids 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxilandia

I know. I believe that the content I am adding is neutral, if poorly worded. I don't see what is wrong with saying that the term is commonly used in material from the left. I am not so irresponsbile as to continously add opinions simply to see if it sticks. I genuinely believe the information I am adding is not an opinion and it is not POV.

In any case, if the consensus is that the content is POV, I wont re-add it. But there is at least another user who believes it is neutral...

And no, AMLO is not a candidate. He was a candidate. The election is now over.

Hari Seldon 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish language

Hi! I removed the countries you have listed, because the majority of the wiki-editors in that article does not agree with it. Some agree with you, some dont. That's the problem with wikipedia, it's hard to get an alliance and trust. But i agree with your opinion. I don't have a problem with Aruba, Curaçao etc. being listed in the Spanish section, it's just wiki-editors in the Spanish language article are sceptics. But if you have sources to support your issue, please feel free to add it back on. Saludos!. -- Ramírez 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri

I wasn't sure whether you caught my earlier parallel cmt "The singer Luis Miguel". Hope you don't feel i was making trouble by being so direct.
--Jerzy•t 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Fox

I ask for your mediation in Vicente Fox, please. Hari Seldon 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Mexico

First, I would like to apologize for the misunderstanding in Talk:Municipalities of Mexico. I left a message there, and some proposals regarding the nomenclature being used to refer to Mexican municipalities and boroughs. I would very much like to hear your opinions on the issue. --the Dúnadan 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologizes

OK, after looking at what I had done, it seems in cut and paste of the Stoopid Monkey topic, I had accidently copied someone's talk page too. I only did this once, so it must have been when I had to copy the text over again at one point. This was an accidential incident and not intentional. I apologize for this happening. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]