User talk:Corticopia

Geography of Cyprus

Hey, Why are you removing the map? 3meandEr 11:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notification

Just a notice. There is a discussion about you at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged -- I have responded, once and only. And note my response is not directed to you or WilyD but to the offending editors. Thanks. Corticopia (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response here, of course, does not mention that I already civilly drew your attention to that discussion, and invited you to respond. Your description of other editors as "bastards" on that page is truly beneath even your standards. Vizjim (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. Corticopia 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, you may take it to heart that even if people are on the wrong side of the debate, a lot of minor incivility looks bad, especially to "uninvolved admins". Give people rope, let them hang themselves. Wily D 14:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corticopia 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about edit warning

Look, I noticed your edits at Northern America (disambiguation) and at Geography of Mexico are edit warring which are a violation of blocking policy (note: you can be disruptive even you are reverting just once a day). Stop that right now and I'd suggest you two discuss it on the talk page. Also, in case you think I'm playing favorites, I've also warned User:Jcmenal as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented elsewhere on this talk page and yours as needed. Corticopia 23:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive talk pages

Just a note. While you can simply blank your user talk page, policy is to archive talk pages. The talk archives are much more important for articles as you can imagine. I took care of it at Talk:Northern America (disambiguation). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a policy, it's a guideline. No argument regarding other notions. Corticopia 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rv. of removal of Aarhus, Copenhagen and Oslo from Metropolis

You have reverted my edition of 17:20, 6 December 2007 in the article Metropolis, with following description: rv, that's right: per talk. Could you please point out where on Talk:Metropolis it is stated that cities with populations of 295.000 (Aarhus), 487.000 (Copenhagen) and 485.000 (Oslo) in the city proper areas should be included, as i'm really having a hard time finding it :( KR Hebster (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Ok, looks like you haven't changed at all, so let me get involved again. Where are you arguing that Mexico is involved in this so-called "Middle America" that you are fixated on? North American is the common term, so unless you have a discussion that I can see, frankly, one more revert and I'm blocking you for a month. Your comment that "That would only make the articles better and more precise" isn't going to do it for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed, with none added on 'Metropolis' by the added parties since I last commented: North America should be treated no differently than other regions or territories like Europe or Asia. Middle America is a referenced term (and not "so-called", so deal with it, your apparent denial of which also connotes an unhealthy fixation if not attitude) and North America is one common term among many, with both being used in concert or singly depending on context, so stop being myopic. This discussion has nothing to do with North AmericaN -- get your facts straight before insinuating yourself. Do you actually contest usage of the term as needed, and why should I refrain from more precision just because a few ultra-nationalist Mexicans -- or you for that matter -- have challenges with what may be a real or perceived linguistic, cultural, socioeconomic, and physiographic divide -- sources for which are readily available -- on either side of the Rio Grande? As is much of your commentary, your warning of blocking is nonsensical, so it will be dealt with as such. Corticopia (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About North America

My proposed changes to the page are currently adding a hatnote notifying people how the article refers to North America, as there are several ways of reffering to it. Also, I wanted to place a reference that will guide readers to the rest of the largest cities that are beneath the 10th largest. I think we should place it along with the reference to the ten largest cities as reference number two. I also think we should forget about the subregions since the matter is complicated and we may take some days to address the situation.

Cocoliras (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to discuss: from what I gather, a majority -- if not consensus -- of editors have rejected your subjective content editions, which have the effect of placing undue weight on minority notions (e.g., tripartite constituency of North America, including cities of Central America/Caribbean) despite other content in the 'North America' article which already deals with this. That's it. Corticopia (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem however, people must have access to the largest cities beyond the 10 largest just in case someone likes to know more about them (e.g.: Someone would like to view what is Monterrey's place in the list). And as with consensus, I'm trying to tell all about this, since they do not respond on the talk page. Also, the hatnote does explain the way THIS ARTICLE is written, not what are the different type of meanings for "North America". Since there are several definitions for North America, I'm describing what does include since Central America (or middle America) is sometimes taken as a continent on its own, and also, it is not fair to avoid talking about the largest cities. As I said before, All or Nothing.

Cocoliras (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Would you like telling me why is adding a reference to the 100 largest cities in North America beyond the largest 10 cities in the article a problem to you?

Cocoliras (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Oceania

Please moderate your approach on Oceania and stop edit warring on that article. Edit warring is harmful to the encyclopedia.-gadfium 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Didn't we agree -a long time ago- to only say "North America" in the introduction, and southern North America, Middle America, and all of that in the Geography section? [1] I know you have sources, but the consensus of the poll (and other subsequent debates) was to simply say "North America" (which is, obviously, inclusive of Southern North America) in the introduction, and then explain everything in the Geography Section. I will delete the "southern" from the introduction, simply to stand by the consensus agreed by all of us, and to prevent an edit war. Feel free to edit the Geography section if you feel that the recent edits there contradict the consensus reached by all of us. --the Dúnadan 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but please consult recent reverts by Jcmenal, who is indicating 'consensus' by noting just 'North America' and unnecessary wording regarding Middle America in the geography section. As well, given the apparent departure of some parties (thankfully) this may need to be revisited, since one party at one point also agreed to make certain accommodations by including 'southern North America' in the lead since it was done elsewhere (in both Canada and the United States) and then reneged when this was done (and has since stuck in those articles). Corticopia (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on Jcmenal's edits in that section. Consensus can be revisited of course. You can reopen the debate at Talk:Mexico.If you do, let's see how people respond to the suggested changes. Hopefully, a consensus can be obtained without resorting to a new poll. --the Dúnadan 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should remind you that you started to revert the sections without consensus, however I'm not against the use of Middle America as long it be separated by a sentence or by a coma. Using an or in the same sentence, your are implicating that Mexico may not be part of North America. My edits did not exclude Middle America and you know it, my edits can be a rewording to you, but your edits are an exclusion. I dont see the problem with this sentences:
Comprising much of southern North America. Mexico is also described as within the region of Middle America
Comprising much of southern North America, also Mexico is described as within the region of Middle America
This is about Mexico and not if southern North America could be Middle America. A BTW, stop insulting me, I did not insult you. JC 14:44, 19 January 2008 (PST)

You claim consensus when none exists, so I can and will continue to boldly edit. Regarding what Mexico may or may not be a part of, glance at Americas (terminology) and North America#Usage: there are plenty of reliable sources that indicate Mexico as not being part of 'North America' (which is generally the equivalent of a restricted sense of Anglo-America). While I don't favour this perspective, it nonetheless exists and is not uncommon.

Anyhow, it's not about that: the sentence and notion of contention doesn't need a comma -- since Mexico comprises much of southern North America or comprises much of Middle America -- and definitely doesn't need the extra wording above you are insistent upon. So, no, that won't do.

And if you want not to be insulted, don't act like a dick. Corticopia (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for two weeks for edit warring at Continental United States. After your umpteen blocks, you should know better than this. The only reason it isn't longer is that it's been five months since the last one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Hmm, South Africa doesn't seem to use a Southern Africa template - does anybody? Kazakhstan does use "Countries of Central Asia" template. You can try running it through DRV, but the result will probably be "this deletion was done right, go nom the other, comparable templates for deletion". Wily D 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that a DRV on Template:Countries and territories of Northern America would result in the deletion being endorsed. Spacepotato (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Middle America

Nha sr, my first was an edit. JC 11:20 10 Feb 2008 (PST)

RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Quizimodo (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo. -- soulscanner (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help as a third party

If you feel so inclined, I would appreciate your input in this discussion: Talk:Països Catalans#new round?. --the Dúnadan 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

I am interested in your opinion with regards to User:Polscience's controversial edits, both on the main page and talk page.

Please see WP:AN/I

This report concerns you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Northern America and Northern America (disambiguation). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Geography of Mexico. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

TigerShark (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Corticopia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, the first diff provided in the report is not a revert, since it was an edit to an article version that was unchanged for some time beforehand. Second, how is it that I am blocked, while the other editor (read: edit warrior) involved -- User:Jcmenal is not? In actuality, the other editors involved in this long, drawn out 'wheel-warring' -- User:AlexCovarrubias and User:Supaman89 (who have been blocked multiple times and are also sockpuppeteers) should be sanctioned. Third, you will see a number of attempts to explain the edits to said editor, only to have them reverted with no comments or with repetitive senseless reasons or ones routed in a lack of fluency. For many months, these three editors have insinuated a pro-Mexican bias into related articles, and they all collude and crop up when disagreeable edits are made (e.g., that Mexico may not be reckoned in North America in some contexts, even though is is not uncommon). If I'm blocked for having violated the letter of 3RR (which I challenge), then these other editors should definitely be sanctioned for violating its spirit. Really, this is getting outrageous.

Decline reason:

Reverts remain reverts no matter what version they revert to. The comments about other editors are irrelevant to the question about whether you should be unblocked; see WP:GAB. — Sandstein 08:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Having reviewed the history of this at Geography of Mexico, there can be little argument that you both were using the edit summary in place of talk page debate. I'm blocking the other party as well, but I'm open to hearing arguments as to why your block should be shortened. - brenneman 03:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so much challenging my block, as I have other things to do. However, I defer to my prior comments: the first 'revert' in the report is not a revert per se, as it was a mildly different synthesis from versions previous ... and an equitable attempt to have our cake and eat it too RE Mexico's location in the Americas ('of', 'of': in a futile attempt to make up for Jcmenal's apparently limited English). And if the above citation from Sandstein holds, then my main issue is that the three other parties involved in this dispute must also be blocked, since they too have reverted affected articles regarding these same points for about a year, if not more. It does not seem equitable that the other parties noted above -- who often collude to boost and skew a particular point of view about what seems to be their country of origin, not to mention edit anonymously and disingenuously (particularly AlexCovarrubias and Supaman89 see edit comment) -- are not blocked just the same. (As for this note, none of the three have been blocked, AFAICT.) A perusal of the records will reveal that. This issue goes beyond just a trivial content dispute in one article, and goes back for some time. Thanks. Corticopia (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... I was not the admin that blocked you, but note that I've blocked Jcmenal not for "more than three reverts," but for edit warring in general. It's not acceptable to "use up" three reverts a day, but it appears that that misconception is widespread in this content dispute.

But, as per the slightly-condescending link that Sandstien has provided, before any further discussion about the problems with the articles can meaningfully go forward you've got to stop reverting so much. I've looked over your block log, and it's considerable. At this stage, I see no evidence that another month being blocked will change your behavior, but I also see not much evidence of anyone actually discussing it with you.

If you want to continue editting, I'm happy to talk over with you how that can happen. I'm also happy to help sort out wider behavioural and content issues with respect to these articles, after the more immediate issue is sorted out.

brenneman 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corticopia for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]