User talk:Ocelotl10293

Welcome!

Hello, Ocelotl10293, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Please also discuss potentially controversial edits on the talk page of the article you are trying to change. SJSA 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Army images / issues

Please stop adding images from photobucket to the article and become familiar with the Image use policy of wikipedia. If you have an open source image or an image which you own the copyright to you can upload it directly to wikipedia or the commons and then put them in the article if appropriate. You can't just post up images like that from photobucket. Also please try to discuss the changes you are making. All you are doing now is removing and changing information without explanation. Until you explain what you are doing your edits will be reverted. SJSA 10:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Its great that you want to keep inaccurate information out of the article, but you can't rely on photographic evidence unless it is supported by a published secondary or tertiary source. If your only source supporting the inclusion of the FX-05 in the list is a picture that you took of Mexican soldiers marching in a parade with FX-05 rifles, you can not include that per WP:RS. If your source is a news article of a major newspaper which includes that same photo and a caption, THEN you can use that as a source. But you still can't say becasue it wasn't named in your source that it must not be true, when \\\\i have provided more than one reference (check the article talk page for the .ru link) for corroborating the existence of these weapons in the inventory of the Mexican military. These lists were compiled through a variety of sources including sales records form the companies that made the weapons! And it is not our place to put only things that we believe to be true, we put information that is verifiable by an outside source WP:Verifiability. SJSA 18:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mexican Army. 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. Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of Mexico

Try to find legitimate sources documenting Mexico's firearms arsenal, but don't just plug Mexico in on every User list. Koalorka (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am the one that has removed Mexico from many User lists for lack of citations and credible sources, that is the reason i was engaged in that editing war earlier this year with other individuals that did not comprehend what constitutes a valid source. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Heckler_&_Koch_UMP#Users. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there freind its glad to see a partner on editing the Mexican armed forces articles to there correct stance, thank you...Homan05

Re: "Mexicans" needs to be it's own article

Hello, Ocelotl10293. You have new messages at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.
Message added 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Vandalism

Thanks for letting me know. I reported the user to WP:AIV, and Materialscientist has blocked him/her. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexican people

Greetings! I see you created the page Mexicans last month. Thank you for taking the initiative, I've been wanting to do the same (Although now we can add one more article to look after; I can assure you it will attract the most idiotic vandalizers). The page is about a very diverse people group and I'd like to see it well balanced (as you do)- It is going to be quite a goal to work toward. Especially since the subject can be viewed many different ways. "Mexicans" aren't a racial group, and to most, the words "ethnic group" are very confusing. Not to mention, Mexico itself is composed of three main ethnic groups (two base racial groups, + one that is a combo of both) and we usually either throw them all into one big group or take one and not another.

What are your ideas on presenting (or bettering) the article in those terms? You said, "as an ethnic group...instead of a demographic that is broken down into even more demographics." Can you elaborate? Do you mean treat Mexican people as ONE ethnic group, no matter their race (Amerindian, European, mixed, etc.) Well, thanks again for creating the article - I hope to be a collaborator and help out.

P.S. I have to make a quick first suggestion: Following the formula used by other "people" articles (ie. French people, Italian people, Colombian people, etc.) I think its better if we "move" the page to 'Mexican people' and not keep it under 'Mexicans' - although I can see why you might like that. C.Kent87 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure I understand what happened when you created the page "Mexican people". I'm trying to fix it though, because I think it would conform better to Wikipedia and its other articles.

Yes, I knew race and ethnicity weren't the same, I was only commenting that you can get sort of confused as to where they overlap. But, I'm in agreement that we should make the article deal with Mexicans as one people and I totally agree that most Mexicans see themselves as being that, with shades from white to brown (or vice-versa). I have overheard that discussion within my family's older generation as well. (I'm also Mexican-American). And the part: "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" - I TOTALLY agree. I'm very much middle-of-the-road. You can find Numerous positive aspects from both sides of our ancestry. We need more Mexicans (And Mex. Am.'s) who give equal representation to each of our roots, and give us a sense of unity.

Well, I look forward to editing bits and pieces. Please don't be afraid to tell me what you think, and I will also be voiceful. Saludos! C.Kent87 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Help on the Mexico Article

Hello! I have read your work and am now wondering if you could assist me with a problem i've come across in the Mexico article. I recently tried to add a picture of an Aztec dancer to the culture section of the Mexico section which already has a picture of Jarabe Tapatío. I did not remove the picture that was there, i only added another but then one editor keeps removing it saying that it's not represenative to Mexican culture. I responded to that with the following:

I honestly believe that the Aztec dancers can be considered a relavent cultural aspect to the culture section but i do see your argument that it could be considerd none-representative of the country as a whole. However i don't believe the current picture is completely representative to Mexico as a whole either and i think massive segments of the national population would agree to neither of the pictures as being not universally representative. So i believe that both can be considered equally relevent. If we only leave either one it is not completely representative of the whole nation and will lean to one stance or the other so i think that having just one is not trully representative of the cultures that make Mexico.

I am wondering if you could offer your opinion on the talk page so that i could at least view another opinion.

Click this for the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#Reverting_Rahlgd.27s_edits

I just think that the editor is just biased against Amerindians because once in the past in the Demogaphics section of Mexico when i tried to state that Amerindians are the second largest group in Mexico he said i was wrong and kept reverting the information i posted even though it had credible sources and then said i was racist against whites cause i kept saying there were more Indians. And when i added an image of amerindians to the demograpics section he kept deleying it and saying there are more whites than Amerindians without providing sources (a stupid argument to even have anyways since it dosen't really matter) and said that i probably hate Whites and Mestizos. From his previous edits and statements he seems to have a very marginalized and biased view of Amerindians and therfore Mestizos and most of Mexico if you think about it. It's getting really frustrating dealing with these stupid race minded arguments which are irrelevent anyways, i mean no matter what we're all Mexican right?

Either way i'm not going to bring this up to him since i don't want to revert to using acuizations as my argument.

But it would really help if i could hear you'r opinion and if you could assist me if any of these stupid race based arguments come up again. Thank you for your time. Rahlgd (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Ocelotl to come to your talk page, but I think it is highly uncivil of user Rahlgd to come to you for "help" (or better said to support his POV) and at the same time starting to spread a prejudice against my person. It is low of him to have this attitude. I urge you to read the whole discussion in the talk page. Sadly this is not the first time that user Raghdl has tried to add too many pictures. Not only myself have reverted his many "additions", but a pool of different users. However, he never seem to listen to the arguments. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism & Bias

It seems you keep adding biased information from a 20 year old source (CIA) that would now be outdated in 2010 (obviously). This is a warning, please stop writing biased things on the article "Mexican people". Do not write opinions on a subject that is not clear or precise, do not write based on original research, find updated and reliable resources. Thank you --Chris Iz Cali (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocelotl10293. You have new messages at Suffusion of Yellow's talk page.
Message added 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocelotl10293. You have new messages at Suffusion of Yellow's talk page.
Message added 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mestizos

For the medicine reference page of Mexican mestizos, it says mestizos are over 80%, while on the government report page it says mestizos in Mexico, El Salvador, etc. are between 70-90% I suppose 90% is for El Salvador because that is what it is says on its infobox on El Salvador's article (check out the "ethnic groups" part). So I don't know where you came up with 86%, if you came up with a median or a mean, then you cannot do so because it is inaccurate to take a judgment for something as profound as this. It does not correspond correctly to your given sources.--76.83.0.12 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the mean of the sources. The INMAGEN article states that the Mexican population is over 80% Mestizos genetically. The other source places Mexico ambiguously in the 70%-90% margin. We know Mexico can't be 70% because of the data in the previous source thus the number should fall somewhere over 80% but below 90%. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how you say that the CIA info is outdates, yet you keep putting Natives as being 30% of the population, and keeping whites as 9%, when clearly the immigration to the US by Mexicans has been mostly Natvie and mestizo because whites consolidate more money in Mexico due to hisotrical reasons (castas).--76.83.0.12 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

About half of the people migrating to the United States from Mexico happen to be "white." The most common mistake and prejudice people make is believing that only the Amerindians and Mestizos suffer economic hardship in Mexico. Many "white" Mexicans happen to be on the same boat with the rest of the Mexican population. Now the reason that the "white" population of Mexico (the rich segment) made more profits for the nation was because historically (even until this very day) this tight knit upper class have monopolized most of the Mexican economy but they employ armies of mestizos, or in the colonial period, armies of indigenous workers. Almost all of the colonial buildings that survive to this day in various regions of Mexico were built by indigenous laborers. By studying the past Census counts you will see that whites were always a minority in Mexico and the indigenous population although severely reduced by disease remained the majority group up until the last Census count in the 1920's. Also, the mestizo and indigenous communities tend to have more children, usually around 5-8 kids per couple whereas those in the white upper classes tend to have 2-3. What also needs to be taken into account is that more and more "white" Mexicans are intermarrying with mestizos or indigenous Mexicans which is slowly homogenizing the Mexican population. There is mass migration heading north on the part of racially indigenous Mexicans but there is very little migration south by White Mexicans. Also worth considering is that not all Mexicans who migrate into the U.S. stay there forever. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic that you say that half of the migrants are white, if that was true, then there wouldn't be stereotypes of BROWN Mexicans, since the pre-existing whites Mexican-Americans outnumbered the brown Mex-Americans, and if half of it was white immigration, then whites would be overwhelmingly the majority of Mexicans in USA, however, Mexican-Americans are not overwhelmingly white as can be shown by the U.S. CENSUS. Sure there might be one or two whites as illegals, but it is ludicrous to think that even 10% of the illegals are white, let alone 50%. It would be more like 2% or less.--76.83.0.12 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)