User talk:Cashton

Hi, what's the license of this image? GFDL or something? -- Jonik 09:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mexican American Wikiproject

I noticed you have made edits to topics on Mexican Americans. You might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject La Raza, and join if you like. We could use some help.--Rockero 19:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEChA "Por La..."

Thanks for fixing that up. It looks good. --hitssquad 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Cartagena co 2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cartagena co 2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr (t • c) 13:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MECha Edits

How can you say that the information I added to the MECha article is POV? It is a fact that most of the criticism about Mecha has come from conservative publications and media.

You said you removed the information I added because you wanted to keep the section balanced. Well accusing Mecha of being a Hispanic Nationalist, Racist, Sepratist, Supremacist, Irredentist, Reconquista organization is EXTREMELY one sided, especially when the criticism is coming from an organization (American Patrol) which has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation league. In fact, it's founder Glen Spencer has been quoted as saying: "The Mexican culture is based on deceit. Chicanos and Mexicanos lie as a means of survival. Fabricating false IDs is just another extension of that culture... [which] condones everything from the most lowly misdemeanor to murder in the highest levels of government."

That's about as biased as it gets. The accusations American Patrol has made are very serious, therefore it's necessary to mention that American Patrol has been identified as a race based hate group.

The article also suggested that the mere use of the word "Aztlan" implies support for a supposed "reconquista", I simply pointed out the fact that the Aztlan mythology only refers to the mythological Aztec homeworld.

Again, those are all facts that not only merit inclusion, but must be included in order to maintain the neutrality of this article.

I have no desire to become involved in an edit war. I simply want to improve this article, so please do not remove the improvements I have made.

RavenJA 07:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that you're anti-mecha, but the claims made by American Patrol are very serious and the fact that American Patrol has been identified as a hate group is very relevant. Most people reading this article are unfamiliar with American Patrol and they will most likely assume that it's just another conservative organization or publication (which it is not). The article doesn't even provide evidence of this supposed widespread Racist, Seperatists, Irredentists and Pro reconquista behavior. It is not balanced to allow critics to make such serious accusations without providing evidence and then deny the other side the opportunity to address those criticisms. I was not attempting to get the last word in, I was simply trying to get a word in by addressing them. It's not as if though I hurled insults at the critics in the same manner those critics have done to Mecha. The information I added are all basic facts, by no means is it POV:

a) The harshest criticsim has come from conservative publicatons

b) American Patrol has been identified as a race based hate group

c) Aztlan does not refer to to a Reconquista movement as the article implies.

Yes, it is true that "Even a terrorist or communist can make a valid point from time to time." I'm not suggesting that the criticism made by American Patrol should be deemed invalid simply because it has been identified as a hate group. It's up to the reader to determine the validity of the point being made and whether they choose to agree or disagree with it. But in order to arrive at that decision, it is necessary for the reader to be aware of the source of the criticism, especially when they're asked to accept it at face value.

"Like someone said on Talk:MEChA </wiki/Talk:MEChA>, critics of George Bush range in ideology from Pat Buchanan to Nancy Pelosi to Hugo Chavez to Osama bin Laden. "Critics of the president, which include terrorists and communists ..." is POV."

Your example of the Bush criticism is not at all relevant to the edits I made. First of all, I did not criticize any of the anti-Mecha critics. I simply pointed out the fact that American Patrol has been identified as a hate group. Second of all, I did not lump in American Patrol with other mainstream publications or organizations. This article specifically referred to American Patrol without mentioning the fact that it's been identified as a race based hate group. It would be POV if Bush's article included serious accusations by a terrorist organization without mentioning the fact that it is a terrorist organization.

I believe my edits should remain in this article. Again, I just added a few basic facts and basic facts are not POV.

RavenJA 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]