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. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vicente Fox

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

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)

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)

DEFAULTSORT:

Howdy! Just so you know, DEFAULTSORT uses a ":" as a separator. Please see: Template:DEFAULTSORT. Thanks! Schmiteye 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Someone pointed that out to me so I have been monitoring its usage. Happy Trails! Schmiteye 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mexico City vis-à-vis the Federal District

I undid your reversion. Per agreement (and most importantly, per constitutional definition) the Federal District redirects to Mexico City. I reccomend that you read Mexico City#Mexico_City_and_the_Federal_District for detailed information. If you dislike the redirect, in order to revert a consensual version, you must obtain the consensus of the editors. --the Dúnadan 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments in the talk section of the article, regarding what I read. And please allow a few minutes next time before reverting and calling somebody else's reverting as vandalism. The discussion was to merge the article, which only administrator (in the English wikipedia) are allowed to do when they determine there is consensus. --FateClub 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to review a couple of concepts: WP:Etiquette, WP:Consensus and WP:ADMIN:

• You are disregarding a consensual version and unilaterally imposing your [mis]interpretation of the constitution and the Statute of Government of the Federal District. That is lack of Etiquette.
• Merging the history of two articles is one of the few things an admin can do (given its sysop rights to delete articles). However, administrators do not enjoy any prerogative whatsoever to call or determine a consensus. (They are not "judges") They carry out the consensus by keeping and deleting articles, but they do not determine consensus on content. That is what we do, civilly.

--the Dúnadan 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that this edit is so important for you have disregarded good manners and basic codes of civility. You may keep the article as it is and I will abstain from editing it in the future. Have a good day. --FateClub 23:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit is not important per se, but the lack of respect towards one of the principles of Wikpedia: consensus. You are violating etiquette while accusing me of doing so. If you wish to reopen the debate, I am more than willing to participate and collaborate, which doesn't particularly mean that I will fully agree with you, nor that the outcome from all participating users will be what you expect. But you cannot disregard the opinions of others who participated into building a consensus and reverting twice, just because you happen to dislike the outcome. You might have to elaborate as to which violation "good manners and basic codes of civility" you are referring to, other than calling your edits vandalism. If my Lack of Etiquette is accusing you of vandalism, then I apologize; it was a swift reaction. But I still consider that reverting a consensual version unilaterally is lack of etiquette. --the Dúnadan 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Civility

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
   * Rudeness
   * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
   * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
   * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
   * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
   * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

Rvv... yes vandalism, in that he ignored the debate and unilaterally undid what had been previously. Dúnadan
--FateClub 00:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I apologize for you calling your edits vandalism. Yet you cannot deny that your first reversion was done without prior consent or consideration of the consensual version –assuming good faith: that you didn't read the talk page–, and the second in spite of the consensual version, after having being notified of it. I do not say this neither in a judgmental nor accusing tone; my actions, though exaggerated, were a response to my perception of your lack of etiquette as well. You might continue to hold a grudge against me for calling your edits vandalism, and again I apologize, but I think that it would be better if you concentrate on the rest of the arguments both in this talk page and in that of the article, should you wish to reach a consensual new version or to explore the issues regarding the merge. Like I said it is us who determine the consensus, not appointed "judges", and the process allows for new insights to form new consensual versions. --the Dúnadan 04:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not deny that what I did was based on my own ignorance. I just do not agreed on your reaction to my mistake. And I do not wish to address this issue any longer. Life is to short to hold grudges. --FateClub 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Would you please read the article BRIMC and then comment on this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRIMC (2nd nomination)? Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it a lot. I'm here for whatever you need. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussing

Discussing is the very nature of wikipedia, and consensus is reached through arguments, rebuttals and counter-arguments, not by walking away from discussions when other users disagree. I kindly invite you to continue participating in the debate. Maybe I haven't explained myself thoroughly. I fully agree with you in this thing: citing sources is not OR. But I disagree with you: you are interpreting sources. You wrote that LDS reports 1 million [in 2006] of which only 200,000 identified themselves as such [in 2000]. "Of which" (de los cuales in Spanish) implies that were 800,000 existinging Mormons in 2006 which decided not to identify themselves as Mormons in the 2000 census.

I do not oppose the inclusion of the LDS figure. I included it myself: INEGI reported 200,000, however, LDS reproted a million) But I do oppose making implication that are not reported in the sources themselves, assumptions about what people answered on a census, and a very subtle implication that the LDS figure is the "right" one.

I hope I had been clearer this time, and I do expect to hear back from you soon, --the Dúnadan 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the disagreement but rather the hostility. And your affinity to reversion prior to discussion. Here are some thoughts to ponder on:

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages says "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles", updating... does not mean reverting. --FateClub 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, from Help:Reverting

When to revert Do See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Note: Vandalism is not synonymous with original research.

Also:

Don't Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly. There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

--FateClub 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

V Fox question

I read that you added the following statement but I am unsure what you mean with it "The overall profit of the clothing industry is calculated at approximately 1,500 million dollars, of which 910 million dollars are smuggled into the country<" Thanks. Andy Rosenthal 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Forget about it, you are quicker than I Andy Rosenthal 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Harassment? You do take things way to personal, out of proportion, and rarely assume good faith. Since you have ignored my petition to solve this issue through mediation twice, I do not know of any other way in which I can get your attention through civil means, except by insisting that you sign the mediation form, again and again. No harassment.

Moreover, despite the lack of consensus and the fact that we are in the midst of requesting mediation, you continue to edit the disputed section at will. To me, that is lack of etiquette. I don't use exaggerated words (i.e. harassment and the like), and I don't take things that personal, but rather professionally. I hope you decide to continue with the debate and the request for mediation in a professional matter as well. I have never been in this situation before, in over two years, even if the midst of more heated debates. We have always been able to reach a compromised consensual version either through polls or mediation. I hope this will not be the exception.

--the Dúnadan 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: If the content of the message is the same it constitutes "harassment"? Doesn't it constitute a "reminder"? I guess a reminder is appropriate, even a fourth one, yes, so that, assuming good faith, you won't miss the deadline by mistake. At least, by the second reminder, a small note either in Talk:Mexico or in my talk page would have been civil, instead of continuing to edit at will, despite the lack of consensus. So I decided to remind you again of the ongoing process of mediation. I won't insist you anymore to sign mediation. It is up to you whether you want to keep this debate professionally or not. Cheers! --the Dúnadan 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Which questions? Let me copy from my Talk Page:

Just FYI, I consider this:"

Request for Mediation ... Request for Mediation ... Request for Mediation ..."

harassment. So, please stop. --FateClub 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, 1) those three messages have the exact same content, 2) which request to sign the petition for mediation in seven days. Now, I will assume good faith and ask you: Is there a reason for a second R4M message? How about a third one? --FateClub 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think I received an answer for any of my above questions, so I am going to move forward and get passed this. I am not rejecting a discussion, what I am uncomfortable with is these "reminders", which I consider unnecessary. I hope we can manage without them. --FateClub 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I answered the questions already: is there a reason for a second R4M message? Yes, as a reminder, even a third and a fourth one. Are you really reading what I write? You might not reject discussion (even though you have not discussed), but are you rejecting mediation? Like I said, I hope we can continue with the process of mediation professionally. --the Dúnadan 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As I thought you would, you disagreed with mediation. Just FYI, you disagreed with mediation not with my proposal. That is, the mediation committee could have agreed with you in that both sources needed to be used. You didn't have to agree to my proposal (either-or), you simply had to agree on the petition of a mediation committee to review yours and mine proposals, and then make a suggestion, which could have favored you. That's all. If you believe your proposals wouldn't stand scrutiny, then it makes sense that you rejected. After all, you rejected "mediation" as an alternative to solve the issue, not my proposal. --the Dúnadan 20:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When a user accuses me of "harassment", and at the same time calls me "ill-mannered", I really don't know what to say. As for my acquaintances: Hari came into the debate by hismelf. I didn't invite him. Corticopia I invited as a third-party. If you had known my history with Corticopia, you'd be suprised that I invited him. We have sternly disagreed on almost every discussion. If you review the archives of Talk:Mexico, Talk:North America, amongst others, you'd see the heated debates. I invited him as a neutral editor for three reasons:

• the Mediation Committee requires that you have contacted a third-party neutral editor as a first step before requesting mediation;
• since Corticopia has rarely agreed with me, and since we've been involved in heated debates as opposing parties, nobody couldn't claim that I was lobbying, or trying to find users that would support my point of view, and
• despite our disagreements (Corticopia and me) we were able to sort things out; he debates very professionally, always backing up his statements with sources and solid arguments, and even though we've disagreed, we remain in amicable terms, even after compromising in some areas.

--the Dúnadan 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

True, I apologize if my repetitive asking you to sign the mediation has bothered you. As for the process, it is usually required that you take other steps to reach a consensus, before requesting mediation, either a poll or a third-party review. I didn't think a poll was necessary, even though I've used it successfully in other instances, since only you and me were debating. A poll would make sense if, say 5 or 6 editors were engaged in a debate. So, I decided to contact a third-party user. Corticopia seemed the perfect choice, like I said, since we've disagreed, yet we remain in amicable terms, and he is very professional. As for the next steps, if you sign, I guess we should wait for comments from the Committee if approved. --the Dúnadan 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) please make up your mind over whether or not you consent to Mediation; I will be processing the request soon, and it will be rejected if all three parties do not consent ~ Anthøny 00:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok --FateClub 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you made up your mind? I'm going to process the case now ~ Anthøny 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Has it been seven days? --FateClub 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take however long you require, up to the seven days normally given. Anthony is a new member of the Mediation Committee and unfamiliar with our practices. He does not speak for the Mediation Committee on this matter, and the RfM case will not be closing inside seven days; please don't feel pressured to respond before you are ready (inside that seven days).

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel. I do need my seven days to make up my mind about the whole thing. --FateClub 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mexico. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, someway or another, you've made your decision. How do you wish to solve this issue? I am open to your suggestions other than mediation, since you did not sign, and other than edit-warring of course. --the Dúnadan 16:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy of Mexico

Thanks for editing. Feel free to proofread and edit. I nominated it as a FA, but it still needs polishing. I am now working on using the citation templates. If you wish to help on that, you are welcome. You can also review the comments of the users that opposed the nomination, so that you can get an idea of what you might wish to work with. --the Dúnadan 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page formatting

Hello. "Primary topic" on Wikipedia has a specific meaning, namely the meaning that is "much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)." If you disagree that Lolita the novel should be the primary topic, please file a move request at WP:RM to move Lolita to Lolita (novel) and Lolita (disambiguation) to Lolita, instead of introducing non-standard formatting to the dab page.

Also, please review the disambiguation page manual of style, which states:

• It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top
• Use piping to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier, or a genus or species and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film)
• Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link.
• The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry.

The disambiguation page guidelines have been formulated through discussion and consensus among many editors; if you feel this page would be better served by utilizing non-standard formatting, please use the talk page first to establish that there is an appropriate case for ignoring the guidelines in this case. --Muchness 22:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel the guidelines should be change at all, I was not even aware of such guidelines to being with. However I would like to point two things:

1. Placing "the link back to the primary topic at the top" is well, 1) a recommendation... 2) on a guideline. A recommendation is not a requirement, it is a rule of thumb that may not apply, like in this case.
2. None of the humans that are notable are named after the book. In fact, that name existed centuries before the book. So, while the films and some other uses may be secondary to the book, as primary, the notable humans are not, including yet other users.--FateClub 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're using the same definitions of "primary topic" here, so I'll try and clarify my earlier comment (apologies if I'm repeating myself or stating the obvious). In the context of Wikipedia, the primary topic is the most commonly used and searched for meaning of a term. All other meanings of the term are secondary to the primary term (again, in the context of Wikipedia) only in the sense that they are used less than the primary term.

In the case of "Lolita", the book is located at the generic article title "Lolita", with no parenthetical clarifier, indicating that it is currently considered the primary topic. The link to the primary topic is located at the top of the disambiguation page for usability purposes – as the guideline states: "When a page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, users are unlikely to stumble on it by accident. They will arrive there by clicking on a link from the primary topic article, by searching, or by directly typing its URL [...] Since it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links."

If you disagree that Lolita (the book) is the most commonly-used and searched for meaning of the term, you can start a discussion about moving it to Lolita (novel) (I can help you file the move request if you're unfamiliar with the process). If you feel that the usability rationale for separating the primary topic link does not apply or should be ignored in this case, can you discuss it with other editors on Talk:Lolita (disambiguation)? I personally don't see how the page's usability would benefit from ignoring the guideline, but I'm happy to work with you and other interested editors towards a compromise wording. --Muchness 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I need to repeat myself then, I am unconcerned with Lolita being moved to Lolita (novel). What I am concerned on is having Lolita (disambiguation) having the novel first and then everything else as if they were derivatives on the novel. "Lolita, diminutive of Dolores", should be there to since they are all derivative of that concept, including the novel, a story about a girl name Dolores and nicknamed Lolita. Putting the primary topic first is a recommendation not a rule set on stone.--FateClub 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reforma

Fateclub, I wanted to propose a disambiguation page for Reforma. When you type Reforma on wikipedia it takes you to the newspaper's article, and I believe since the diary is named after the avenue and the war, the query of that word should bring the user to either a disambiguation page or to the article on the Reforma War as oppossed to the newspapers' page. I thought of bringing this up to you since you are an editor. I'd be happy to go with this request to someone else if yoi feel that is appropriate. Thanks. Andy Rosenthal 07:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, not only are the other uses derivative of the War, but Reforma is the most notable of them all. Even if the newspaper and the avenue ever disappear the war will remain part of history. --FateClub 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.99.137.82 (talk • contribs)

Exceptions:"reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking " [1], [2], [3],

[4], [5]

Exceptions:"reverts to remove clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material;" "extremist group"m "many of which wore black ski masks and carried weapons"

Exceptions:"reverts to remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons);" "president" -> "dictator" --FateClub 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Learn to compromise. You want your summits on wikipedia, create an article for them and then link them to vicente fox if thats what you wish. Fox didn't invent the summits, nor was he the only president there. Shall we inculde the summits on the article of Chavez and the other 32 leaders??? Quit reverting.--Dcrcort 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will revert your blanking. My content is all sourced. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to remove content, lack of sources is (when I have removed your content), controversial content about living people also (like the content you sometimes add). There is no need to compromise, we all must follow the same rules: add (reliable) sources (not findarticles.com with no name of the publication), or your content will be removed. --FateClub 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"I don't like it", sounds like something amloclub (you) would argue. It's obvious you dislike President Fox, and all the information you provide is poorly structured and very bias. Get over it fateclub, Vicente Fox will always be remember as the President who brought democracy to Mexico when he ended 71 years of one-party rule, while your candidate Mr. Obrador, will always be remembered for bankrupting Mexico City and for being a sore loser.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.94.72 (talk • contribs)

That's OK. You may want to visit the discussion in the talk page sometime. Where instead of insulting each other we came up with those topics and sources you now criticize. --FateClub 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

whose we? You are the only one that keeps adding unrelated sections, and negative information. The article is not an anti-fox page. Quit adding dumb information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.99.128.94 (talk • contribs)

"We" are the people who reached consensus in the talk page of Vicente Fox. --FateClub 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, mention names. You and Hari Seldon? Lame. Why don't you go edit Amlo's article instead. It sucks. Add the latest updates to his presidency. Make sure to add his cabinet. lol.--Dcrcort 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok --FateClub 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

hurry amloclub....someone else might beat you to the editing of his many plans. Make sure you include his plan to convert the Maria islands into a vacation spot. What a brilliant idea! well of course, he's the best president we will ever have. Amlo is my hero!--Dcrcort 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you editing AMLO's page. Let me guess, you like 70% of his supporters already left the crazy man. lol oh well, if I'm wrong, make sure to include his plan to construct two bullet trains in Mexico. I'm sure the construction will start soon, since of course he's our legitimate president.--Dcrcort 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Vicente Fox for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

My reverts were to undo partial blanking and introduction of unsourced facts on biographies of living people. If the unblock is denied please indicate how to close my account. Thanks

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My reverts were to undo partial blanking and introduction of unsourced facts on biographies of living people. If the unblock is denied please indicate how to close my account. Thanks |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My reverts were to undo partial blanking and introduction of unsourced facts on biographies of living people. If the unblock is denied please indicate how to close my account. Thanks |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My reverts were to undo partial blanking and introduction of unsourced facts on biographies of living people. If the unblock is denied please indicate how to close my account. Thanks |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}