User talk:Dcrcort

Fox Presidential Library

I disagree with the inclusion of the following sentence:

With the election of Felipe Calderon from Fox's own party the PAN, many believe presidential libraries are likely to become a new tradition in Mexico.

There is no reliable source that document the "many believe" statement. Who believes it? How many? Why would they believe it? Is Calderón so similar to Fox? Has Calderón done anything to prepare for his Library, due to start construction in six years? The above sentence is nothing but an opinion and, if we were generous, original "research". It has no place in the article. Hari Seldon 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I admire President Fox and President Calderón. In fact, I participated counting votes when Fox was elected, and though I didn't sympathize with his party at the time, I was thrilled to see the happiness and joy of Mexicans at the news of his victory. I did voted for Calderón, and was outraged when Lopez Obrador disregarded the work of hundreds of thousands that assured Mexico of its democratic certainty. However, precisely because of this, we owe them our commitment to the highest standards. If we add information that does not conform to the highest standards, others may follow and pretty soon their articles would be unreadeable and filled with unverifiable information that may not be true. It is because of this that I ask you for a little more research on the library. Now, don't worry, the project is way to new and there is not much information out yet, but it will be a note-worthy section in the future. If there is not enough information now, there is nothing wrong with making it a one or two sentences section, so long as those sentences are verifiable and conform to the highest standards. I hope you understand. Hari Seldon 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Fox

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vicente Fox}}. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Michaelas¹⁰ 11:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism

How can you call yourself a liberal, support Bill Clinton and Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon at the same time. It seems that you do not have an idea about what you are saying. Calderon just like GWB is a christian conservative, do you know what is his stance on major issues like abortion, outsourcing of jobs, minimization of the role of govt in economy, etc? He is the mexican equivalent of a Republican and a very conservative at that. Furthermore to compare Chavez, Hitler and Lopez Obrador has to be one of the most preposterous things I have heard in my life. It almost seems that you barely have an idea of what these people are and what they have done. This kind of thing is what provokes conflict. Ignorance that is fueled with fanaticism. SaintJohn's 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMLO and Hitler

One of the biggest supporters of AMLO was Isaac Masri, an art collector of jewish ancestry. How do you think it makes someone of Jewish ancestry to read these statements? I find it offending that you compare Hitler to Lopez Obrador, or even Hugo Chavez. I think that such a comparison minimizes what Hitler did and should be avoided out of respect to those that endured his policies. Andy Rosenthal 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Calderón

I noticed you replaced Calderón's picture. Well, this was most certainly needed, and thank you for finding a free image that showed his face better. Anyway, you replaced the image by creating a new file. Because of the problems with vandalism that we've had before (on countless of ocassions, clowns have replaced the image with anti-Calderón cartoons that had to be erased immediately), I have grown to prefer updating the file that was already in place (there is a way to go the file page and replace the file, but giving the new image the name of the old file). If you'd like, I can do it, or I can tell you how to do it so you can do it your self. This way, it is easier to monitor the file and easily identify vandalism and revert it quickly when it occurs. Hari Seldon 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Fox's Cabinet, well, I just did it because we did the same thing on Calderón, and because it is a subject that truly deserves its own section. Think of it this way: the extra space can be used for picutres.

Additionally, the table looks great in lower resolutions, which is one thing to take into consideration

Hari Seldon 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

"okay andy well work. You keep saying you want to work, but you add nothing. I don't see your name nowhere in the "history" of the article"

I don't want to be a pain in the neck. But I felt compelled to make this corrections as I feel very offended when anyone says that a Mexican can not speak proper English. While well is an adverb, good is an adjective. Hence you cannot say "Well work" but rather you should say "Good work" since work here is used as a noun and not a verb. Furthermore, as much as their use is frequent in Spanish, the use of double negatives should be avoided in the English language. Thus you cannot say "I don't see your name nowhere" but you can say "I don't see your name anywhere". Having said this I encourage you to review the history of the article. I might not be a prolific contributor but I have tried to contribute as much as I can. Thank you. Andy Rosenthal 20:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations....you're my new wikipedia stalker.--Dcrcort 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant...well Andy, do some work and quit complaining.--Dcrcort 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Would you please read the article BRIMC and then give your opinion on this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRIMC (2nd nomination) Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Fox

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --FateClub 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting your vandalism is not against the 3RR rule.--Dcrcort 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing content based on discussion in the talk page is not vandalism, in fact that is exactly how wikipedia works. And if it sourced it should not be removed without a good reason. You can express your reasons in the talk page, like everybody else, instead of edit-warring.

I am sure we will never agree, but the way Wikipedia works, this does not matter much, the opinions on experts based on citations of reliable and reputable sources is what matters and as long as we include citations (that reflect only reputable and reliable sources) there will not be any problems.

You do not like it when others have removed your contributions, this has happened because they lack citations. Many people have expressed their disapproval of Vicente Fox being biased towards the positive of this president, and this is not good. As much as you admire Fox wikipedia is a place for reliable information, not for fan pages. --FateClub 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people? who? where? how many? YOU AMLOclub, is the only one adding ridiculous sections to an article that presents a good view of his presidency.--Dcrcort 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many? At least four or five. Now, the idea is to present an accurate and objective view, not a "good view" --FateClub 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who? as far as I'm concerned, it's only you and one or two more AMLO loving editors. Your attributions to Vicente Fox are bias and unfair.--Dcrcort 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who? The following:

--FateClub 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol...exactly point proven. You and andy are leftists by heart and will kiss the feet of AMLO. Now, Hari Seldon has asked you mediation on the article before, and you have completely ignored it. Pacoworld, rodrigo, and raguil?? well, they usually never contribute.--Dcrcort 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What point exactly? Name-calling is not exactly a way to achieve consensus and is in fact against Wikipedia:Civility. Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, better try facts. --FateClub 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

too bad the name calling occurred in my OWN talk page. Amlo fans really are weird.--Dcrcort 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my talk page "hurry amloclub"
And the talk page of Vicente Fox "Get real amloclub"
And the edit summary of the article "get a life amloclub"

All of which are violations of Wikipedia:Civility ("Rudeness, "Judgmental tone in edit summaries", "Personal attacks", "Giving users derogatory names").

--FateClub 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor you. Are you going to be able to sleep tonight? So many violations against poor fateclub, don't worry man...have a little fate. lol--Dcrcort 00:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really offended by your sarcasm, nor do I find it particularly funny. It is a shame that you choose to not collaborate, some of your ideas are actually good, too bad you have resorted to edit-war every time somebody disagrees with you. We could have really improved the article together. --FateClub 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RIP fateclub...--Dcrcort 06:04, 12 June 2007 (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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]