Jump to content

User talk:Hseldon10/Archive Mex1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Hseldon10

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hseldon10 (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 10 February 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A question

Hey Hari, how well do you know Alex Covarrubias? The thing is, he's engaged in several discussions trying to prove how Mexico is so much better than any of the other Latin American nations; yet rather than discussing for the most part he is reverting all edits that might try to show otherwise and even deleting compromising information (like the HDI index from the Latin America article, since Mexico really doesn't do that well on Human development). What surprised me is that a "new" user, User:Dr.Kerr happens to be recently participating in the same articles (Newly industrialized nation, developing nation, Latin America) making similar changes and claims, and while claiming to be from McAllen, he is making the same grammar mistakes. --Alonso 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. I have asked him on several occasions to participate constructively in some discussions (like the one about Mexico's superior standard of living driving Argentine immigration), yet he never answered back and even deleted my petition from his talk page. Like I said, he hasn't really participated in discussions, he is simply "reverting" changes and deleting compromising information without explaining why. In any case you might want to review the history of Latin America's article, mainly the Economics section. --Alonso 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I won't file an accusation against him. I don't think it is as obvious as Raveonpraghgas. And, he first accused me of so (without being able to back it up) so he might take this personal. I rather wait and see what else Dr. Kerr does. If he continues to participate in the same discussions and articles, or if he continues to follow the same "reversion" pattern, then I guess we should do it. --Alonso 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Alex filed an accusation against me. I am filing an accusation against him based on what I showed you about Dr. Kerr. I still have to defend myself, and I will request our IP addresses to be checked (I've got nothing to hide). I ask you to participate in the discussion if you wish to: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/J.Alonso --Alonso 04:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating. As you can see more users are giving their opinions; one of them proposed that Alex's account gets blocked. We will see how this discussion ends up. Best case scenario, Alex's account doesn't get blocked and he beings to participate constructively. I've seen some of his contributions in graphic design which have been useful. Yet, when it comes to discussions, he needs to learn to debate properly.

By the way, I added the reference links on the second city proposal, like you had suggested before. Like you said, a page with references is harder to vandalize. And, even if it gets vandalized, since we are providing evidence, most administrators will simply revert it, instead of reopening the debate over and over. But, of course, if you find more information about Monterrey (or Guadalajara) that would enhance or even change the proposal, by all means add it. After a discussion like the one we had in Second city, we get to know other users and see which users have good-will, are cooperative, and present valuable information and intelligent arguments. You were one of them. I hope we can work together in other articles and projects in the future. Cheers, --Alonso 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corticopia's past

Hola Hari:

I just want to share with you some information you might consider important. We had a very difficult time months ago removing Mexico from Central America in the article North America. Why? Because an "anonimous" user (IP from Toronto Canada) was reverting all the changes. I finally discovered he was an already registered user and got him blocked because of sockpuppetry. One month later, I found out he was already been accused of sockpuppetry with that account.

Well my point is that he is against of Mexico being included in North America. His main "argument" was that the UN geosheme includes Mexico in CA and that's it. He also denies that North America is also a subregion of America and ignores the cited content proving him wrong. Well, he is Corticopia. For months he was retired and trust me, NO BODY changed the articles North America and Central America (specially this one) to say Mexico was in CA.

Suddenly a "new" user shows up. He deleted a line in the article CA. It said "Mexico is rarely, yet sometimes included in Central America under certain definitions". This line was discussed and agreed. He changed it to "Mexico is included in Central America" then to "Mexico is sometimes included in Central America".

I don't know what his problem is. The important thing is I totally felt this is the same person we had a very serious vandalism problems months ago, so I checked his edit list. Wow! What a discovery, his first edit was the article Issac Asimov and articles about Canada and some other regions of the world. It was very obvious it was the same person. Please check this sources [1] and this [2]. Please, read them carefully.

Please check the contributions of each accused sockpuppetry account, specially the one of User:Ex post factoid. It is very obvious he is the same person.

He was dragged into the article Mexico when he was unable to "win" again in the article Central America (he didn't even try to change the article North America because he knows a lot of people guard that article). So his reason to say Mexico is in "Southern North America" are purely false and personal. He wants to "exclude" Mexico or make it "look" appart from Canda and the USA.

I'm telling you this because it seems that you agree with him in many aspects, but you don't know that his reasons are just personal, a personal aversion against Mexico being included in North America. If he's so interested in accuracy of the articles, why isn't he editing the article USA? He even asked Supaman to do it by himself. He's just there to exclude Mexico. Please read carefully the evidence provided in each sockpuppetry case. You will find it is the same person. Cortiopia has edited the same pattern of articles that the other accounts did. Too bad I warned him and I'm sure he stopped editing with that account to prevent being identified. I think we should stop him and prevent him from editing the article with his biased, excluding information, even if sourced, because his reasons are just personal. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. I haven't had the same experience with him and I cannot validate your sockpuppetry claim. Perhaps you can link me to his process. It might be obvious to you that he is the same person, but I don't have the luxury of making assumptions for the purpose of proving what I want to be true. It might just be that these two users have similar interests.
In any case, sockpuppet or not, Mexico is obviously part of North America and there are PLENTY of sources to prove it. All I ask is that you provide ONE! The thing is that he did provide a source, and sources matter a lot more than personal opinion. Just give me a source, and that should be the end of it.
Additionally, my username is taken from a character by Isaac Asimov. Since it is possible that I share the same interests as E Pluribus Anthony, does it mean that he an I are sockpuppet?
Finally, what is so wrong with saying that Mexico is in the south of North America? I mean, after all it is so! Mexico certainly is not in the north of North America. I don't think the wording he proposes implies that Mexico is in Central America, and, I also would suggest you take into account that no region is "positive" or "negative" by itself. Central America also deserves some respect, and it is wrong to say that someone tries to "downgrade" Mexico simply because they want to put it in Central America. In Europe, kids are thaught that Mexico is in Central America, and geologically, they would be partially correct. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is making claims without sources (and I have had a lot of headaches because of it), and making judgements based on personal opinions and not on facts that can be proven. I am not against saying that Mexico is in "southern North America", but I would also have no problem saying that Mexico borders at the south end "Central America", IF a source can be provided. Get the sources, and I'll back you.
Hari Seldon 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hari. Loooong time ago, while we were discussing the issue of including Mexico or not in Central America (in the article North America), I provided a lot of definitions where Mexico is clearly not included in Central America and considered part of North America. Please check them very carefully. This sources are the same presented in the article North America and were introduced by me. The result of the discussion was that "some sources" might include Mexico in CA but this is rare and however, most of the definitions don't place it in CA.
I understand that you don't want to make assumptions about Corticopia possibly being the old user and well known sockpuppet master E Pluribus Anthony, but ever since he "left" Wikipedia the article North America and Central America were not edited in a way to mislead user to believe Mexico is part of CA. Just recently this user Corticopia, started editing with a very very intriguing pattern and supporting the same ideas that E Pluribus Anthony used to. So I investigated his contribution log and oh what a surprise... very very similar of that of E Pluribus. You might call it a "coincidence" but this is more like a pattern instead of a coincidence. I kindly ask you to read carefully the sockpuppetry arguments as well as the evidences provided there. My only intention is to stop his biased edits, because what motivates him is not the good of Wikipedia but his long term biased prejudices. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Frankly, I can't and won't address AlexCovarrubias' commentary above at length, which is just one long-winded personal attack, predicated on the assumption that users worldwide may not share interests/perspectives and edit in a similar fashion. However, one thing is clear: he apparently side-steps the facts that my editions to the Mexico article and others are enhancements that have cited basis and are fairly neutral in viewpoint, while his are not. Shoot the messenger(s) and misrepresent the facts/history all you want, but that doesn't change the information presented.
Moreover, it appears that I am not the only who "can't stand" the impassioned, 'nationalistic', subjective grand-standing of AlexCovarrubias/Supaman. If I had to engage these instigating editors incessantly, I'd probably come and go too. If there should be a movement to ban users (and, despite accusations, note that the editors listed above are not apparently banned) -- given the verbose and perhaps obstructionist discussion surrounding recent editions to the Mexico article -- it should probably be to ban these two. Corticopia 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hari, on a personal note, you know that I have strongly disagreed with Alex's vehement opposition to changes against his personal opinion and his resorting to accusations of sockpuppetry as a way to win over a debate. Nonetheless, and just to give him the benefit of the doubt, I did check the information he provided against Corticopia. All users he pointed out did use sockpuppetry (and consequently were blocked) and they follow a very similar pattern of behavior, not to mention Corticopia's grandiloquence and verbose writing. Plus, in spite of being a newcomer (Corticopia has supposedly been here just for 15 days) he has a very comprehensive knowledge of the rules of the game here at wikipedia, and the great majority of his contributions have solely focused on correcting the "inaccuracy" of the location of Mexico with respect to Central America. That doesn't necessarily mean that Corticopia's arguments are wrong. But, I do believe this is a very irrelevant issue, and that there are personal motives behind both parties arguments (Alex and Corticopia). After all, it really doesn't enhance the article that much to say "Central American nations of..." instead of "Central America, with the countries of...". Any of the parties should have reached a compromise since this is not an issue proven by extraordinary references amongst academics, as Corticopia wants us to think but a matter of different popular conventions. Like User:Squeakbox said on a similar discussion in Talk:Central America, Wikipedia is not the "encyclopedia for English speakers" but the encyclopedia for knowledge. The Mexican version of which countries integrate North America is as valid as the English or European version.

This issue has been thoroughly discussed both in Talk:North America and Talk:Central America (with the same grandiloquence of Corticopia). I see no need to add such a detailed description on an introductory paragraph when it could have been properly added to the Geography section in the same article without compromising the "accuracy" of the whole article. What I am trying to say is that both parties could have reached consensus already, yet both preferred to violate the WP:3RR.

Given the evidence provided by Alex I do not object to him opening a sockpuppetry case against Corticopia. If Alex is proven wrong, then this would be just another case of him resorting to accusations of sockuppetry to win over an edit war, and as such, administrators would take note of his playing with the rules of the game. If he is proven right, however, we would be better off without contributors like Corticopia that bend or break the rules in order to make their point, even if the point is valid. I don't think breaking the rules through sockpuppetry and repeated violations of 3RR (not to mention his ad hominem attacks and insults) is the price we have to pay for accuracy; collaboration and consensus are better options.

--the Dúnadan 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dúnadan. I don't appreciate you passing judgement over my person just because I upset you with my accusation of sockpuppetry. I don't appreciate you saying I "do this to win debate wars". That's a big prejudice. I don't do that because it would be such a waste of time and it is absurd. On my entire wikipedian life I have only filed 2 cases of sockpuppetry, E Pluribus Anthony and yours. Well, please let's move on.
If I pasted the same info on your talk page it was because you said you were an admin in Wikipedia en Español, so you have experiencie with this cases. I thought you would understand better his edit patterns as well as the evidence provided, including his wording and style of writing. And you did. You also made a great point by saying that for a 15-days-old account, Corticopia is a very experienced user. That's right.
Well, unfortunately I don't think I can accuse him of sockpuppetry. In fact I never accused him of sockpuppetry but just of being the same well-known ex-user and sockpuppet master E Pluribus Anthony. Right now I have suspicions about an anonimous IP user that is changing info at the article North America, with the same range of IP used back in the days we had an edit war with him. It is another "coincidence" that anonimous IP users from the same IP range are editing the article North America just like in the old days. Oh, because I didn't mention that before Corticopia created other accounts, he used to edit as an anonimous user. It was later proved and he was sanctioned as a vandal by an admin.
My only point with all this was to warn you guys that his edits are not motivated on a sincere wish for accuracy, but in his personal bias and desire of Mexico being included in CA even if most of the sources say the contrary. PD: In Europe, Mexico is not included in CA (or Belize). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I knew since the beginning what Corticopia's real intensions were, but of course no one believed me, I'm just glad that now you two guys are finally seeing it as well or at least considering it, but as Dúnadan said, let's not assume anything yet, let's give him a chance to justify himself, if he doesn't show up it'd mean that we were right, and then he will probably create a new account, and in a couple of months he'll continue doing his "Contributions" to Mexico related aspects. Supaman89 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I love it when you guys (Alex and Supaman) put words in my mouth! Fisrt, Covarrubias, I am deeply sorry if you think I am passing judgment over you or being prejudiced. I was simply stating the facts: you opened up a spurious accusation after your unjustified deletion of the work of three users (not even two different versions were being debated!) in order to win an edit war. Hari and Squeakbox confirmed it. Moreover, I find it funny that you say, "please let move on" after your numerous insults an attacks (i.e. you don't have a life, your uppish attitude, etc.). I just gave you the benefit of the doubt. But if you never planned on opening a sockpuppetry case against Corticopia, then your comments were only motivated to instigate animosity between otherwise neutral users like Hari and myself towards Corticopia.
You both seem to miss the point: it is in spite of Corticopia's referenced arguments that if he is a sockpuppet, then he should be banned. The fact that he might be a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily make his arguments wrong. Like I told Hari, and not you (Alex and Supaman), but you seem to get into other people's conversations, that the price of having a more accurate article should not be the violation of wikipedia's rules. Now, in this page, Alex has provided references to prove his point too. Excellent. But you three (Supaman, Corticopia and Alex) have made a storm in a glass of water over a trivial matter, since there is absolutely nothing wrong or biased or racist in saying "southern North America" anymore than in simply saying "North America" and you will find references to both statements, so there is nothing wrong with either proposal. All three of you have engaged in ad hominem attacks and in 3RR. It is the fact that neither party is willing to be collaborative and reach a consensus what is driving this never-ending debate.
Hari, I am deeply sorry that we ended up using your Talk page to continue this debate. If you wish to, please copy all this discussion to Talk:Mexico so that it can get archived in the proper place.
--the Dúnadan 04:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hseldon10/Archive_Mex1&oldid=107142272"