Many of the 49%[citation needed] of Mexican Americans who identified as white in the 2000 Cesus would likely fit into this category, particularly since only 10% of the population of Mexico is white."
Just to let you know, this section should not have been deleted. It should have been tagged as . Remember It is always better to add to an article than to subtract from it. Have a good day. Jerome709 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you see why I rv'd it, it reads like a journal publication, is formatted like one, and screams "copy/paste", so I couldn't decide if it was WP:OR, WP:COPYVIO, or just a plain mess of text. Either way it, it should of gotten cleaned up before plastered on the page. Q T C 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Tagging the article very rarely has any effect; most articles on wikipedia have at least one completely ignored tag. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, especially when no source is provided. We could fill several articles with music zine gossip column material about Kano's "future plans". The article is far better served by sticking to actual facts and actual events. Jdcooper (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. With regards to your recent warnings, please attempt to exercise some discretion. My change to Howard Schnellenberger removing the idiocy about him zipping his fly on national television was simple removing of vandalism. Similarly, your message to KitHutch (talk · contribs) was equally inappropriate. On the other hand, some of the IP users you left messages to did make vandalism edits and it would be more helpful to revert the vandalism than simply leave a message and leave it in place. In at least one case, though - the IP edit to Apex Stores - that was in good faith. --B (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
:Removing nonsense from an article isn't vandalism. WP:BLP permits that negative unsourced material be removed from biographies of living persons on sight. Even if that policy didn't exist, some guy zipping his fly is not an encyclopedic detail. Let me put it to you another way - if you continue to issue unfounded warnings, you will be blocked for disruption. --B (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Magnonimous". The reason given for Magnonimous's block is: "WP:BLP violations, talk page abuse, canvassing, recreating deleted content forks repeate
Decline reason: Based on your contributions, you appear to be the same person as Magnonimous. Use of alternate accounts to evade a block is not permitted. Please contribute constructively or not at all. — B (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The following unblock was concurrent with the above review:
I, Jerome709 am not magnonimous, nor have I ever been. I have been editing wikipedia through a private Canadian proxy as I have had bad luck with hackers in the past. I must say that I have enjoyed magnonimous's antics ever since I saw his edits when I checked the ip, ironically, to confirm that it wasn't in danger of being blocked. I did not expect him to fly off the handle like this though. I would appreciate it if you could unblock my user account, and I'll go back to my real IP. As a new user it will be hard, since I don't know all the rules, but I promise I will try not to bother anyone anymore. P.S. Can anyone suggest a good firewall? Jerome709 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Your explanations have been demonstrated to be false (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous) and this account has been blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Magnonimous. MastCell Talk 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, this is my real IP : 24.141.82.186 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)