User talk:Supaman89

Click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Mexico Hospital

I am wondering if you were all right with me putting the image of the hospital juarez de mexico back in. it is definetly not a fancy hospital (i've been inside five times) it simply has an interesting architecture style on the outside of the west building, this does not make it a fancy hospital hospital. it definately is not a fancy hospital it just looks nice in fact before it was remodeled it looked quiete plain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veertlte (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons in infoboxes

I have reverted the flagicon you added to Maite Perroni's infobox. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) before adding any more flagicons to infoboxes. In particular please pay close attention to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Not for use in locations of birth and death. Aspects (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how you define if the article is overloaded. I nor anyone else I contact has had any problem loading it, and many articles such as south korea have many pictures without causing any problems. I don't believe that the number of pictures on this article is a detriment in any way and the whole point of wikipedia is to show people encyclopedic facts mainly through text but, also through images i have also noticed however that you have corrected some inacurate facts which i thank you for but, could you please leave the images up or at least discuss what you are planning to i am going to revert the previous images back but i will put back your corrections as these corrections that you inserted are neccessarry - thank you

¡Estoy en mi camino a la luna en un cohete hecho de queso! Lo siento soy una persona muy raro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veertlte (talk • contribs) 05:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Mexico

I completely understand what you mean but the reason that the article says it is overloaded is because it is the way the wikipedia system works. Once an article gets over 80 kilobytes in size an automated system makes message come up saying that the article MAY be to long and that it might be apropriate to split up the article. to reach this 80 Kilobyte goal about half of the Mexico article including half the text would have to be removed and it would then be impossible to accurately represent Mexico. Many articles are over this limit and this does not mean that they are breaking size rules but it means that it may be appropriate to devide this article if it is practical. and just as a side note all of the images in this article only take up 5 kilobytes out of the articles 124 kilobytes because the wikipedia servers do not save the information of the picture on to the article but save the information link to the image. So getting rid of images would not raelly solve the overloading problem anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veertlte (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican maps

Can you please stop removing national locator pin maps from Mexican cities please and adding municipal maps in its place. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but remember many editors are clueless about Mexican states and it makes it more difficult for them to picture where it is in Mexico. Most people know where California and many of the other states in America are. The municipal maps are being use in the municipality articles anyway... Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It not the state location that concerns me. Articles on Mexican towns should have two maps. One showing where the town is in Mexico and the other, the dot where it is located within a municipality of a state. This would seemingly cover it all, but what my problem was, was that I had seen you also adding a redundant general state map in Mexico or a map of the municipality where was unecessary, particularly at the expense of the national map. If you keot the national pin map and just added the dot state map I would be perfectly happy. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That is the bias of wikipedia though isn't it that for countries like US, Canada and UK we are "expected" to know where the states or counties are. Personally I think most of US place infoboxes look a mess and make it quite difficult sometimes to pinpoint and picture it. From a neutral world view two maps, one which show location in country and another which shows location in a county of a state is perfect I think. Anyway the most important thing is that we get these missing municipalities for Mexico up and running. I would be extremely grateful if you could help built the templates here in the way that Template:Chihuahua has been done so we can begin to complete it. I created them all earlier but from Coahuila downwards they ar eempty at present and haven't been formatted. All we need to do is to copy the municipalities/seat towns from the Municipalities of Mexico list by state and we should make a lot of progress. Use Template:Chihuahua as a guideline to style. Sorry to bite at you, but as you can see I have a very organized system going on here to make this task a possibilityBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who did Tamaulipas huh? Well thats absolutely "super", "man"!! LOL! That was a great move and inspired me to design the rest like so. The only change is to reformat it as one so you have the municipalities and then the relative municipal seat in brackets like Template:Chihuahua etc. Given time, and providing the navboxes aren't too large they could be filled out with notable landmarks and topics aside from municipalities, But the goal first of course is to format all of the templates and then get them all started. Using the Enciclopedia de Mexico site every single municipality in Mexico should clearly eventually be expanded beyond a stub. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I;ve expanded Xalapa today. Is this where you live? Could you expand it further? I;ve also stubbed Juan de la Luz Enríquez, a name of which you undoubtedly aware of. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central America

Hi Supaman89,

The reason that (in my view) Mexico should be included in the list of Central American countries is the fact that the Mexican states of Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, and Quintana Roo are by geographic definition in Central America. Of course this doesn't mean the whole country is Central American. But this listing is not just used for political purposes.

From the standpoint of biology, it is very useful to view Central America separately from the rest of North America. Central America is a tropical region that shows a strong South American influence; it is part of the Neotropic ecozone. The rest of North America is subtropical or temperate, and is only weakly influenced by South America; it is in the Nearctic ecozone. For example, in the United States only three mammals (the Virginia Opossum, the Nine-banded Armadillo and the North American Porcupine) originated in South America, while dozens of species of Central American monkeys, cavimorph rodents, anteaters, sloths, armadillos and opossums are descended from South American immigrants. Since the above-mentioned Mexican states are part of this tropical region, their species show similar patterns and they should be included in listings of Central American species. It makes no sense to me to leave them out.

Do you disagree with this reasoning?. If so, could you explain why? WolfmanSF (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how in your view Mexico is in Central America, after all a lot of people associate North America with English-speaking, fully-developed countries such as Canada and the States; but North America is barely a geographical region in which Mexico is indeed located (it's not like it can be moved, right?). Because of this differences with Canada and the U.S. some people try put Mexico in Central America even though it's not, going to extremes like taking that 12% as a fact (which was promoted by some geographers) and further more give it extra emphasis just to "achieve" it. I personally don't care about the location, Mexico could be in Asia, but what is a bit tiring is to see people constantly trying to put Mexico in a region where it just isn't located just because it is different from its 2 neighbours (people don't seem to realize that Anglo America and North America are not the same). I think it would be like saying that Egypt is located in Asia even though 95% of it is located in Africa just because it is different from Nigeria. I hope you understand my points and see that despites cultural differences, geographical location just isn’t something that can be chosen, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the situation is that you are viewing this issue from a political-cultural standpoint when from the perspective of myself and others it is just a question of geography. Actually, Egypt is listed as both an African country and an Asian country, because the Sinai is in Asia. Similarly, Turkey is listed as both an Asian country and a European country, because it includes part of Thrace which is in Europe. From my perspective, the fact that part of Mexico is in Central America makes it a more diverse and interesting country. It was not my intent to offend anyone by pointing that out. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globe projection

Hi! Thanks:) Here you go. - SSJ ☎ 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias...

...and I must say you're doing a fantastic job with the Mexico article. Cheers! --JorgeAranda (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RBD in Article

RBD should never have made it onto the article. While they are very popular, they will soon fade as many of the boybands(backstreet boys, N'sync)did. You compare them to Modanna in the US but a more accurate portrail would be Alejandra Guzman, Rocio Durcal, Lucero and countless others that have made a more profound legacy in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikz911turbo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

r u from south city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.9.46 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Mexico relations

Can anyone help find sources for Denmark–Mexico relations. If can look through Spanish language sources it would be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion to express one way or the other at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark–Mexico relations. You would have more insight than the average person at Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corticopia

[1] The newest Corticopia. It was just a matter of time after Administrator blocked several pages in which he edit-warred anonymously. So, be notified. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium–Mexico relations

Perhaps you can express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Mexico relations or help add information at Belgium–Mexico relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Djjpineda

Please don't make personal attacks directed at others like you did here. I understand dealing with a vandal can be frustrating at times, but please don't lose your cool and try and remain civil. Thanks. t'shaél^chat 04:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Djjpineda

Your posts on that talk page were incivil. Please observe WP:RBI in similar cases in the future. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Power

Want to add your two cents to this proposal I have here. Deavenger (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]