User talk:C.Kent87

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear C.Kent87: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

Posted by User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Eden

Apologies. Was an edit/conflict revert. You edited the article just two minutes before I did, and because I was systematically removing spam from a number of articles, your edit got caught in the crossfire. Funnily enough, the same thing almost happened again just now when I tried to fix the previous error. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

I really don't know what you're talking about. I honestly don't remember doing such a thing. Can you please show me where I did what you say? Perhaps I did it, but again, I honestly don't remember. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just checked and the one who did it was User:Mixcoatl. It was not me. It sounded wierd to me because I don't usually edit history related subarticles. However, if you want to keep that information without other users erasing it, just add a source. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winterhalter

My apologies for moving the portrait of Portrait of Maximilian I of Mexico that you added to the article of Franz Xaver Winterhalter that I wrote. I moved that portrait, which studing Winterhalter wok, I have to confess I never saw before, different reasons. 1. Winterhalter is remembered for his portraits of royalty particularly his female sitters. noone of the portraits he painted of men his famous or rank among his best. The best known is perhaps the ones he painted of Prince Albert, secondly the ones of Napoleon III or king Lous Philippe of France. so the portrait of Maximilian I of Mexico is of no consequence among Winterhalter's work. 2.There is limited space within the article to display the paintings of Winterhalter, therefore the ones shown are only his most important and famous ones with the sole exception of his selfportrait with his brother, display to show his resemblance.The other four :Portrait of Elisabeth of Bavaria, Empress of Austria, The Empress Eugénie Surrounded by her Ladies in Waiting,Portrait of Madame Barbe de Rimsky-Korsakov and Portrait of Leonilla Bariatinskaia Princess of Sayn Wittgenstein Say are Winterhalter's best. 3.There is a place for lesser and all the other Winterhalter's paintings: Wikimedia Commons media related to him. I hope you understand my reasons. I am happy with your collaboration and interest. Check the other articles I have created, perhaps you can alos help with them. Let's work together and move on regards,User_talk:Miguelemejia

Chile

You might want to check out this and this. Khoi khoi 06:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it's because I edit a lot of Turkey-related articles. Are most Chileans mestizo in appearance? I know that most Argentinians tend to look more European, sí? :-) I don't know much about Filipinos, sorry. Maybe my friend Tombseye might know, you could try asking him. Khoi khoi 05:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the edit history of the page before editing next time. CieloEstrellado made a destructive edit, essentially reverting to a version of the article from months before. Thanks, Khoi khoi 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this edit. You made your edit under that version. Khoi khoi 03:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Saber girl08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Saber girl08 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White American

When I reverted your changes I wrote, " please explain on the talk page why this is pov if you'd like to remove it. this has been subject to ongoing discussion/editing." You reverted it back without explaining on the talk page. I'll leave it with your version for now but if you don't respond to justify the changes on the talk page I'll revert back. Thanks in advance for your input. Calliopejen1 08:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind, I can't read right. I see that you left it. Thanks, and I'm in the process of adding references for it. Calliopejen1 08:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry..

Hi C.Kent87, just thought you'd like to know that you're under sockpuppetry suspicion...by User:Ramirez72...He'll be "monitoring" whatever you're doing...weirdo..huh...thought I'd let you know. Cali567 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning, but I have done nothing wrong but make very few edits. We can all go on to our lives without scare, Ramirez seems to be an honest fellow, so this will all blow over soon enough. Thank You C.Kent87 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accused as well.. [1] as well poor choice of words on an edit summary [2] CashRules (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican nobility

Hi there. Thanks for contributing the article Mexican nobility. One thing I think may have been in error, though. This footnote links to an essay about lesbian genealogy by William Addams Reitwiesner in 1995, not the Historia Genealogica de las Familias mas Antiguas de Mexico from 1910. Was this intentional? -kotra (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spanish people

Hi there, I checked the article and I see that Alex Covarrubias already added Mexico, if Jotamar reverts it again, feel free to open a discussion and we'll participate on it. Supaman89 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Argentina

It is been a while and I don't recall the details of the consensus, but you can review it in the Archives. (The Talk page seems to be conveniently archived after only a few sections). If I recall correctly, the consensus was to mention all sources, those that cite an 87% of White Argentines, as well as the Genetic studies in the appropriate sections.

This seems to be a very sensitive issue for Argentines. Given the vehement opposition, and the ludicrous accusations of other users of being "racists against Argentine whites", I do not wish to be involved in those articles again.

--the Dúnadan 00:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle

Thank you for drawing the case of Chapultec to my attention; your edit summary prompted me to go back to the sources. After rereading them, they do state that Chapultec was built in Neo-Gothic style, however they do not state that medieval castle architecture was influential or that it is a revival castle. It is possible for something to be built in a Neo-Gothic style without being influence by castles – just look at churches. While the name of course is indicative, to make the link ourselves constitutes original research. As such, I have removed mention of Chapultec from the castle article pending the provision of a source which explicitly states it was part of the movement of revival castles. Unfortunately, I have so far been unable to find one. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you wrote:

"I don't see an argument for inclusion there" - I had given more than one reason for its inclusion. It was planned by many of the same architects associated with Europe's revival castles. It is not in Europe, which warrants a mention to inform of the fact that castle revivalism was impoerted to other countries outside of Europe.C.Kent87 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Article talk on article pages. My statement remains true, even if uninteresting to you. I see your arguments. I don't see how they make it more likely others will agree with you. - - Sinneed 07:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a gentle reminder. Please give a read to wp:CIVIL. I have dropped your comments from my talk page, and again assure you my statement is true. "I don't see an argument for inclusion there".

Further comments on my talk page in reference to the content of the article will be deleted unread.- Sinneed 07:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They won't be unread, but anyway, Thank you for your help and interest in this matter. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove fully referenced material from the article without explaining first on the talk page why and gaining consensus for your actions. Nev1 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Article Castle

I don't see any reason why the Chapultepec Castle can't be considered, in the first place a castle or a revival castle. The accusation of engaging in OR seems, to me, ludicrous. For every castle mentioned in that or any other article you might want to also demand a source that explicitly states -apart from its name- that it is a castle or a revival castle, using whatever architectural criterion. If there is no explicit reference that clearly states that Castle X is a revival castle -apart from its name- they those castles should not be included either, because, using the same logic, it would be OR. Either way, you could browse the online catalogues of your public library for books on architecture and castles. Chapultepec might show up there. --the Dúnadan 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kent. I think your edit is very good. I will help you to keep it because there's no single flaw in it. Count with me. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong person

Hi C.Kent87. You left a message about Chapultepec Castle on my talk page, but I don't think it was meant for me, since I don't remember editing that article. Unless, of course I missed something. :-) Ineuw (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize. I would be more than happy to contribute to the discussion, after all, anything having to do with Mexico is of great interest to me. Unfortunately, I am not qualified on the subject, however, now that you have aroused my curiosity, I have immediate access to qualified professionals, in the fields of Mexico, architecture, and the history of both. Ineuw (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Dear C.Kent87, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, C.Kent87. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans

Hi... Originally I had the article at "Mexican People" but someone linked it to the disambiguation page before I could get to edit it. So what I did was take the word "Mexicans" which was originally a disambiguation page and remade it into the article.

About ethnicity and race these terms are not the same thing. Race would constitute the biological composition of individuals or groups, in which case Mexicans are mostly bi-racial (Amerindian/European). The racial/biological composition of Mexicans is not very important because the article deals with Mexicans as an ethnic group which, according to Fredrik Barth: "can be said to exist when people claim a certain identity for themselves and are defined by others as having that identity." (Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. London: Allen & Unwin. 1969.)

To quote Conrad Phillip Kottak in the text book: Window on Humanity a concise introduction to Anthropology Pages 217-218:

As with any culture, members of an ethnic group share certain beliefs, values, habits, customs, and norms, because of their common background. They define themselves as different and special because of cultural features. This distinction may arise from language, religion, historical experience, geographic isolation, kinship, or "race." Markers of an ethnic group may include a collective name, belief in common descent, a sense of solidarity, and an association with a specific territory which the group may or may not hold... Ethnicity means identification, and feeling part of, an ethnic group and exclusion from certain other groups because of this affiliation. Ethnic feelings and associated behavior vary in intensity within ethnic groups and countries and over time.

I wanted to create an article on Mexicans as "one people" where the point of view comes from anthropology, culture, biology, history and is as far away from ethnic nationalism and political correctness as possible. I'm Mexican myself and I can safely say that we all see ourselves basically as one race (despite the fact we are mestizos) or at the very least as one people. For the most part we are blind to racial differences within out own group but there exist many who suffer some sort of identity crisis and lean toward one group or the other and begin racist agendas within the collective identity of Mexicans as a group. To put it in short words, I wanted to create a scientifically objective article on the Mexican People without the mainstream distortions and prejudices and without any inclination to any ethnic/political/national agenda like so many that are floating around all over the internet. It's nice to see other people are getting interested in the project but I believe balance will be the greatest chore here since everyone wants to tell their side of the story. Thanks for contributing to article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Mexicans a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Mexican people. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion notification

Here, I've reverted an edit you made to the Race and ethnicity in the United States Census article. The english in the source you cited is pretty garbled, but i can't see a way to interpret it as supporting the assertion you added. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which source are you refering to? I used two different sources for two different things, yet was reverted on both. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake. I've restored the parts which I reverted unintentionally. I'm pushed for time at the moment, so I'll take another look at this later. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now looked at the bits I spoke of restoring above re categorization as Mexican in 1930 and de-categorization in 1940, and don't see a problem with those. An additional source I found with info about categorization of "Mexican" as a "Race" in 1930 is Donald L. Horowitz; Gérard Noiriel (1992). Immigrants in two democracies: French and American experience. NYU Press. p. 91. ISBN 9780814734797. (I noted that, but did not add that new source to the article). Pages 90-91 of that source have some info which may be pertinent to the assertion I reverted above re the 1850 census, though I don't think it supports "were able to naturalize". Regarding the 80,000 former Mexicans of which the book speaks, I think the book's interpretation of the apparent reasoning behind their classification is incorrect; see Article IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, here. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moctezuma II

Hi - I'm afraid I've reverted your edits, as blogs and personal websites shouldn't be used as aources. Have you read WP:RS? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's good to know. Happily, I've just learned how to site books, I just had not been able to get to that. Thanks, again. C.Kent87 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, the new interface helps, the drop-down templates, show extra fields so you can add page numbers, which are vital. There's a big learning curve here, isn't there? :). Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a Google Books URL (easy to find) the tool at http://reftag.appspot.com/ is very helpful. I often end up tweaking the cite it produces a bit, but it saves me a lot of work and prevents some mistakes which I would likely make without it. Plug in the http://books.google.com/books?id=aqmAc2fFsAUC url of the sample book and click "Load". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thank you for that. I'll have to try it. C.Kent87 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Slim

Hi, I have just reverted your revert on the above article. Sorry about this but I'm pretty sure that you have misunderstood the situation in this instance. The article gets "vandalised" a lot, usually in a good faith sort of way by changing either the guy's net worth or his heritage. If you think that I've got it wrong then feel free to chat about it, and thanks for patrolling this one: there are days when it becomes a real pain to keep on top of persistent new IP editors etc there. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the "unintended consequences" were when I reverted to calling him "Mexican" and not "Lebanese Mexican". We are looking to keep it the same way: He is Mexican. Mexican by birth, and its no different than Donald Trump being American... even though he has German ancestry. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. I can't recall what happened a fortnight ago but can look back if you are bothered about it. I'm struggling a bit to keep this article in some sort of stable state due to various "insistencies" (?) from certain contributors (Lebanese, full name of religion, stating he's the wealthiest more times than necessary - mostly people with an agenda, it seems to me). Chances are, you got caught up in one of those whirlwinds - sorry about that. Could do with some help sometimes but, other than C.Fred, it seems not to happen very often.

If you have the time then pop on to the talk page and add whatever you think to the latest spat regarding Lebanese (finished about 8 hours ago, but we need consensus one way or the other). - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]