User talk:Rbraunwa/archive 2

This is the second archive of my talk page, from September to December 2006. Please do not edit it. The current talk page is here. The first archive is here. The third archive is here.

Thank you...

...very much for all your contributions to Mexican articles. I hope the current situation in Oaxaca is not affecting you too much. Best regards, -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rune.welsh. Thank you for your kind comments. I've really enjoyed working on the Mexican articles. I have very good sources, so that's why the articles have turned out well. That and the fact that I really like Mexico and Mexican history.

I left Oaxaca in late June for an extended visit to the United States (Los Angeles and Seattle). That was after the demonstrators had occupied the center, but coincidentally just before things got really serious. I'm planning on returning in November. From what I hear from friends, things are definitely not good now, but I hope the issues will be resolved soon.

--Rbraunwa 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did start watching your talk page after my first comment. Thank you for the praise on Doña Josefa's article, I remember writing it after the previous one was found to be a copyright violation. I'm not in Mexico now and therefore don't have much access to quality sources on Mexican topics, so my contribution in this area is still rather limited.

I'm glad to hear the situation in Oaxaca did not affect you. Let's hope everything is solved by the time of your return. In the meantime enjoy your stay up north. 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ferrol / el Ferrol

That's very interesting, Bombadil1986. (Yes, I do read Spanish — better than I write it.) I had assumed that the preference for Ferrol over El Ferrol was partly a reaction to the name Franco gave it. But the discussion does seem to indicate the article has been used at other times as well.

My source says "Se dintinguió por su valor y conocimientos, [Flores] fue comandante del Departamento Naval de El Ferrol..." {Orozco Linares, Fernando, Gobernantes de México. Mexico City: Panorama Editorial, 1985). I think that was his title, and thus El Ferrol was an official part of it. I admit, however, that this is an assumption, since my source is recent and I don't have access to any documents from the 1700s.

My sources commonly refer to El Perú and El Callao, both of which were mentioned in the discussion. My thoughts are that all three of these were either official names or standard names in the colonial period, which is the time this article deals with. I think that would make it appropriate to use the El Ferrol form the same way New Amsterdam is used in the article on New York. And in this particular occurrence, it is doubly important if the El was indeed part of Flores's official title. Is there any way you can determine whether it was or not?

You obviously speak Spanish, but I don't know what country you are from. Are you from Spain?

Anyway, thanks for your interest in the article. I'm sure we can resolve this. I don't want to use an erroneous name, but I would definitely like to know what name was in use in 1775.

--Rbraunwa 21:37 15 sep 2006 (CEST)

Hi, Rbraunwa.

On the one hand, all editions of the DRAE define the demonym Ferrolano as Natural del Ferrol (where del = de + el), except editions from 1970 and 1984 which defined Ferrolano as Natural de El Ferrol but it must be an error because in 1992 and 2001 editions use the first definition again. It means that is not correct to write the article el with a capital letter.

On the other hand, the newspapers started using El Ferrol in the XIX century to dignify the name of the city but in the practice nobody use it.

Finally you can write el Ferrol in your article but I live in Ferrol and everybody says Ferrol. It's no clear which of them (Ferrol/el Ferrol) is older, but the first form is more used (it's the official one) and should be used by everybody. Bombadil1986 19:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bombadil1986. "el Ferrol" would work for me. I think it meets the concerns I had (using the name once as it was used at the time and/or in his official title). If I need to use it in a contemporary article, I will definitely follow your recommendations. Thanks for your input.

Rbraunwa 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Viceroyalty of Peru

Hi, I just saw your comment that the list of rulers should be split off and I agree; however that can't be done until the article is somewhat longer. I saw how much you have contributed to the biographies of many of the viceroys, and you seem to know a lot about Spanish colonies in the New World. I just thought I'd encourage you to add to the article if you are able. It seems strange to me how weak the article is compared to the Viceroy of New Spain (let alone dominions in Europe, say), and it seems like an obvious systemic bias. Rigadoun (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rigadoun, you're right about the Viceroyalty of Peru article. It needs a lot of work. It's possible I will get to that, but I'm not sure I'm the best person to do it. For one thing, all my printed sources are much better for New Spain than they are for Peru. That also seems to be true of Internet sources, so maybe a person would have to go to libraries in Peru to really do the topic justice. Secondly, all my articles so far have been biographies. I think I do pretty well with those, but I've never tried my hand at a broader topic, especially one as broad as this. It would be nice to get a contributor from Peru to work it. Perhaps a translation of es:Virreinato del Perú might be a good start. Maybe you could do that.

Even the article on New Spain needs a lot of work. For beginners, it doesn't include a real account of the changing boundaries. It seems to me the dates of changes in its jurisdiction are essential, but I don't know them and haven't gotten around to seeing if I can find all of them. Right now reading through the viceroys' articles in order gives far more detail than is included in the New Spain article. Of course those articles should give more detail, but I don't think the discrepancy should be as wide as it is.

I noticed you've been working on articles about the Solomons, Vanuatu and Indonesia. I don't know if you're also interested in the Philippines or not, but I've done some work on Spanish colonial officials there too. Spanish colonialism was very interesting. I started out just interested in Mexican history, but working on that got me involved in both Peru and the Philippines. There is still so much to do — the later South American viceroyalties, independent Mexico, etc.

I'm impressed with your language abilities. I know how much I like being able to work from Spanish sources, but I can only imagine being able to work from French, German and Russian as well.

--Rbraunwa 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

drugs of abuse . . .

i dropped a note on Urod's talk page and he has moved the discussion over to category talk:drugs#Drugs vs Drugs of abuse. cheers --heah 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Heah. Rbraunwa 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Tennessee

Hi Rbraunwa. Added the Mexican-American War to my watch list, and noticed you spruce it up occasionally. My interest in American History is greatest in the period that begins with the election of James K. Polk (a Tennessean) to the Presidency. A humorless fellow, but one whose Presidency you could argue was largely successful and significantly influenced the growth of America. User:Mpleahy 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mpleahy, thanks for the note. It's nice to hear from someone with overlapping interests. I am actually approaching this from the Mexican point of view, and it's a little outside my usual time span. Most of my work has been on the colonial period in Mexico, but I'm hoping to exand that into 19th century independent Mexico. Rbraunwa 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Henry Spelman2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Henry Spelman2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy, that was lightning fast. I was still working on it. But it's all taken care of now. (And I appreciate the notice, in case I forget a tag.) Rbraunwa 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

José de Gálvez

Hi Bob,

Thank you for the link: José Antonio de Areche. It mentions the years 1776 and 1777. As José de Gálvez died in 1787, I'm still curious to know what he did these last 10 years.

Thanks and best regards. PhilFree 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Page Fence Giants

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Page Fence Giants article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! - Lucky 6.9 02:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lucky. That article is not copyrighted. It is specifically made available under the GNU Free Documentation License. See the bottom of this page for confirmation. I have been very careful not to duplicate any copyrighted material. I also gave complete credit to Baseball Reference Bullpen in the version of the article I posted. Baseball Reference Bullpen is a wiki, just like this one, and its material is available in the same way. Importing an article from there is like importing one from the Spanish or other language Wikipedia. Rbraunwa 03:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case, I'll gladly restore it. All Google told me is that is was from another site; it didn't specifically say that it was a GNU. Thanks for being nice. I've been catching some serious flak tonight.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being nice too. I was afraid I might be catching flack. I plan to import a few more articles from that wiki in the next few days. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Rbraunwa 03:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• You got it. Just give a yell and I'm there. Take care. Signing off for now. - Lucky 6.9 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:United States controlled substances law

No problem :-) Just trying to clean up Category:Drugs after the recent merge with Category:Pharmacologic agents. --Uthbrian (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Alfonso López Michelsen Ruy López de Villalobos Letizia Ramolino Spanish Renaissance Spanish poetry Belisario Betancur José Joaquín de Herrera José Bernardo de Tagle Miguel Grau Seminario Mita (Inca) Entremés Grand Inquisitor Agustín Gamarra Francisco Bolognesi Nicolás de Piérola Political history of the Philippines Alberto Lleras Camargo Luis Sáenz Peña Repartimiento

Cleanup Patricio Aylwin Government of the Río de la Plata Misael Pastrana Borrero Merge Plastic arts Bonapartist List of Spanish composers Add Sources Black people Carlos, Duke of Madrid Telavi Wikify Archdiocese of Cambrai Mexican Revolution Friedrich Ferdinand Graf Beust Expand Pygmy Jules Cardinal Mazarin M-theory

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Carrillo de Mendoza

Hi Bob,

I'm not sure to understand what you wrote at the end of this article:

Pérez de la Serna continued as archbishop of Mexico until the arrival of the next viceroy, Rodrigo Pacheco y Osorio, marqués de Cerralvo in November, 1624, when he was assigned to the Spanish diocese of Zamora. He died in 1631. Pérez de Veraiz was absolved of the charges against him.

He died in 1631. who ? Carrillo de Mendoza or the archbishop ?

Kind regards. PhilFree 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phil. That was confusing. I thought at first it was some kind of careless mistake for Pérez de la Serna, but actually it referred back to an earlier paragraph. I tried to make it more clear. I always appreciate your pointing out these things to me.

--Rbraunwa 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob, in fact I later noticed it's not very important, because Carillo de Mendoza and the archibishop, both died in 1631. Certainly a trial by ordeal, both of them sent back to back by their creator ;-) . By the way, thank you for the picture of Manuel Lombardini in the french article. Have a good weekend. PhilFree 16:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

National University of San Marcos oldest controversy

Hi over there i am HappyApple and i see you have corrected a couple of times some of my contributions to the article. You have moved the following paragraph to as coment:

"Whether founded by the king or the pope doesn't affect its age. However, the other claim is more important. Was the papal bull invalid for some reason, or revoked later, or what? Please expand that sentence.

UNMSM often states the National University of Santo Domingo's founding Papal bull In Apostolatus culmine, was not officially recognized by the King of Spain at the time hence making into an apocryphal document also states the document in question was discredited by the Pope Paul III."

In my opinion, based on this document [1] i believe it is quite unfair to give "the oldest" title to the University of Santo Domingo instead of San Marcos, because, there is not evidence from Archivo General de Indias or from royal decrees signed in the 1530s which in some way may have proved the University of Santo Domingo may have existed. According to [2], in Santo Domingo (now Dominican Republic) existed two universities during Spanish colonial regime, and those were the University of Santiago de la Paz and the University of Santo Tomás.

The first one (Santiago de la Paz), was stablished in 1537~1538, but it was not officially designed under the title of university,it was just an academically unknown institution for over twenty years. King Charles I of Spain formally gave the institution the title of university by a royal decree on February 23 1558 marking the formally the birth of the institution. However this university Santiago de la Paz was closed and never reopened again in 1767, year in which the Jesuits were expelled from La Hispaniola.

The second one (University of Santo Tomás) started its operation around the early 17th century after the existence of University of Santiago de la Paz, and officially and formally designed to as University in the first half of the 18th century, "this university" is what today is known as "The University of Santo Domingo".

The University of Santo Domingo, often uses the the papal bull argument of the Pope Paul III "Apostolatus culmine" to supossedly give itself the title of the oldest university. But this assertion is false. In the 16th century a document or decree to be legal it required the signature and the approvation of the King or the Royal court not from the Pope. The University of Santiago de la Paz was officially aproved by the King much time after San Marcos, and the Papal bull which ratified its founding was given many years later.

The suppossedly papal bull "Apostolatus culmine" linked to Pope Paul III was disproved by the Pope himself on the same year in 1538, and the King Charles I of Spain also revoked the University of Santiago de la Paz arguments to call itself as university at the time.

This dispute turned into a heated debate among Jesuits and Dominican friars for over two hundred years until it was settled down by the King Ferdinand VI of Spain himself in August 2 1758 when he wrote a document which expressely prohibited the University of Santo Tomás to be attributed itself as the oldest in La Española or the Americas. (see for more information at the end of the text: [[3]])

Based on this information, i think the leading paragraph of the University has to be reverted back to the title of the oldest university in the Americas. --HappyApple 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vilhelm Ekelund

The photo is taken before 1940, so there is no copyright issue. I can't find the source from where I scanned the picture (long time ago), but as you can see it's Ekelund as young (taken around 1900) and he died at old age 1949. /Hedning at the swedish wikipedia

Diego Fernández de Córdoba

Hi Bob,

Concerning the uppon mentionned article, you wrote: King Philip chose the French hydrographer Adrián Boot to investigate the drainage project and take charge of operations.

At first I was surprised, Boot isn't a french name, so I searched and found: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16060d.htm . It says:

At the same time Philip III commissioned the Spanish ambassador to the Court of France, D. Inigo Contreras, to find a competent engineer for the work and the Hollander Adrian Boot, who arrived in Mexico in 1614, was selected.

Can you just check with your own sources ?

Kind regards. PhilFree 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phil, Sorry I didn't answer this immediately. I think your source is correct. Here's what one of mine says (quick translation): By a royal decree dated the first of June [1613], was sent to Mexico Adrian Boot, specialist in hydrographic matters, who had accomplished in France the draining of rivers and lakes, so that he would be dedicated to direct the operations of drainage of the city of Mexico; his salary was 100 ducats per month. --Manuel García Puron, Mexico y sus Gobernantes.

The other source does call him a Frenchman, but I think that's just because he was sent from France.

I'll make the change in the article. Enrico Martín might be worth his own article. When I get back to Oaxaca, I'll see if he's in the Enciclopedia de México, and compare the two sources.

--Bob

Raimondi

Hey, thanks for finding that image of Raimondi! I had no luck at all when I looked. (He's one of the strangest musicians who ever lived, and that's saying a lot.) Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help out. I don't really know anything about him, except what I read in the article. But I try to add images when I stumble across them. Here's a web page you might find helpful. --Rbraunwa 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Duly bookmarked! thank you much, Antandrus (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gorman article

Can you undo your edits in the Gorman article please. This is a UK article where UK-English applies. Titles in UK-English such as District Inspector are always capitalised. Cheers Weggie 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will do. --Rbraunwa 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality.

Keep up the new entries of a high quality. If there is a fact in it is is probably good enough for a DYK Did You KNow? feature on the main page Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ernest,

Thanks for the kind words. Which article were you referring to?

--Rbraunwa 00:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. My daughter also has a cat named Mr. Bigglesworth.

Hi oh sorry Jose Celestino. Its good to knwo there is another great wikipedian aside from myself . see Zsigmond Kisfaludi Stróbl and Shalu Monastery. My work on wikipedia has ranged immensely from a town in Swaziland to a poem by Margraet Atwood to a rug made in the mountains of Iran ! I have almost added all of the villages in Slovakia to wikipedia and then I will concentrate on adding films and actors to wikipedia particularly older film and Finnish film which has a substantial industry of its own -trying to make wikipedia less Anglo-centric. Only about 0.001% of films and actors are covered on wikipedia imdb has millions!! Keep up the great work Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s Also as I am Ernst Stavro Blofeld by kitty Mr Bigglesworth takes his name from the kitty of Doctor Evil my impersonator! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Norman Kwong

I noticed that you edited his page and wrote typo as the comment. However, I wish to let you know that it is by The Style of Address of Canada that Lieutenant Governor is styled His/Her Honour the Honourable while in office and The Honourable for life. [4] --Cahk 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? He would be referred to in documents as "His Honour the Honourable Norman Kwong", with both those terms appearing together? Or does it mean he is entitled to use either the one or the other? In any case, I'm no expert, and I will leave it to you.

--Rbraunwa 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again. When he's in person, you would call him 'Your Honour'. In paper work, you would start with 'Your/His Honour' and then 'The Honourable' for subsequent events. But in official and technical terms, he's styled 'His Honour the Honourable' when he's invited to an event or in legislature.

This is just like the Governor General who's called 'Your Excellency' in person and offically 'Her Excellency The Right Honourable'. It's all British tradition..haha --Cahk 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Migas Calientes Botanical Gardens,

The José Celestino Mutis article uses "Miga Calientes Botanical Gardens." I assume it should be "Migas Calientes Botanical Gardens." Is this a present-day botanical garden, or one that has moved and is now named differently? It should be listed if it is a present-day garden under Spain on the List of botanical gardens, or linked to its modern day equivalent with a note of the move and name change. Thanks for taking the time to do the translation and add substantial information to the Hipólito Ruiz López page. KP Botany 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, it should be Migas Calientes. That must have been a typo. It is apparently the original name of Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid. Here's what I found:

Ferdinand VI ordered the creation of the Madrid Royal Botanical Gardens on 17 October 1755, and it was originally installed in the Huerta de Migas Calientes, near the area now known as Puerta de Hierro, on the banks of the river Manzanares. It had more than 2,000 plants, collected by José Quer, a botanist and surgeon, who collected them on trips up and down the Iberian peninsula, and by exchanging plants with other European botanists.

I'll make the changes in the articles.

--Rbraunwa 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article lists a plant "quiscar." I cannot find this anywhere, what it is? Do you have a translation of this name or something that could give a clue as to what the plant is? KP Botany 20:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, KP, I don't know what this is either. My source was the Spanish Wikipedia, where the term is enclosed in quote marks. I take that to mean it was probably a regional varient, not standard Spanish. I can't find anything useful on line. --Rbraunwa 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if there is simply not a clue what it is, it should be removed for now. I will look for it in his journals, or substitute another plant which he brought back, or you can do either, also. Thanks for getting a modern link to the garden, the article is better with this. KP KP Botany 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think so? This isn't much different than just saying "He brought back a plant that was used...", except that it gives anyone interested in further research on it a starting point. And the statement itself is useful in that it says something about the state of medicine at the time.

But it doesn't really give any information about the state of medicine at the time, I would argue, if you use a plant that is so unknown, and how can anyone research it who doesn't have access to sophisticated linguistic or ethnobotanical databases? It doesn't really give even a starting point without a note about what language the plant name is in. Simply use a more familiar plant or a plant that is researchable to the average layman, with certainty about its name, and you will give the reader all you ask for, a starting point to further research, and something useful about the state of medicine at the time. Plus as it stands it really requires a specific citation--this also would enable the reader to find out more. But writing about a plant that no one even knows the language, without a citation, doesn't really fly.

The Spanish article itself should be changed, it needs a citation with it too.

BTW, did you see the article on Juan de Cuéllar? Unfortunately, I couldn't find much on the results of his expedition. Perhaps you know something about that. Also, is he one of the botantists who have their own abbreviations? And does Wikipedia have a list of them somewhere? --Rbraunwa 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but I'll look at it, and look him up and see what I can find.

He might or might not have an abbreviation, all names do not have standard abbreviations, just many of them. The standard location to search for author's botanical abbreviations is IPNI at http://www.ipni.org/index.html. Wikipedia has a list, add them as you find them at List of botanists by author abbreviation.

However, he would only be listed as a botanical author with an abbreviation or standard form if he actually described and named a plant for science. Although he may have sent live specimens back to Spain, he is known for not having pressed plants for herbaria sheets. So, if he didn't describe any new plants of his own or of anyone else's he won't have a botanical abbreviation or be listed at IPNI or elsewhere as a botanical author. KP Botany 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, KP, I'll leave that up to you. I still think it's interesting information even without identifying the plant. However I entirely agree about it needing a source. --Rbraunwa 12:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The plant is Buddleja incana Ruiz & Pav., or quisoar not quiscar, alternative spelling of quisoar is quishuara. The name is from the Quichua a Quechuan language--maybe the Spanish Wikipedia copied the name incorrectly from the journal, would you change the Spanish version if you edit there? Otherwise I will. These names and their various spellings are verified in Vocabulario de los nombres vulgares de la flora peruana, J. Soukup ed., 1970.

Botany is a bit complex because of how it is done. Not all collectors identify all of their specimens, and collectors who collect as broadly as Ruiz did are apt to make mistakes in identifying some plants. On Wikipedia a plant name pretty much can't be quoted directly out of a primary source, such as a plant collector's journal. The plant name has to come from a secondary source at least, and that author will have checked the herbaria specimens and made certain that they were identified then verified before including the name in the article. The common name often requires additional ethnographic research, especially if it is in an indigenous language.

I'm not sure I understand why you want to focus on this particular plant? Possibly if I understood why, I might agree with you. The journal contains even more detailed entries about other plants, many of which have similar properties.

I will research Buddleja incana, but don't expect to find much, or will just use notes out of his journals, or you can. KP Botany 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi KP, As you've probably already figured out I'm not a biologist, I'm a historian. So my interests in the article probably aren't identical with your own. But I'm not tied to the Buddleja incana information. It seemed like interesting information from several perspectives — a sample of the kinds of things they were looking for for their practical uses; a little information on the state of medicine at the time, etc. But if you have other examples, that's fine with me. (And I still agree with you that this one needs a reference.)

By the way, great work on identifying the plant. Back then spelling wasn't standardized, so it's possible the name was spelled in three or more ways.

--Rbraunwa 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you're not a botanist. This actually makes your reasons, if you have particular ones, for interest in this plant more important, rather than less, as there may be something that appeals to a broader audience than just botanists or naturalists. I'll leave it in, as it shows the inclusion of an Indian language name by Ruiz, and is an obscure plant, then add one of broader botanical or ethnopharmacological interest, simply to show the range of plants that Ruiz described, as this is what he is known for: describing a broad range of plants with medicinal properties and learning their ethnobotanical histories, from the obscure little Buddleja to quinine. I'm a linguist by training, something I no longer practice, so I'm dedicated to tracing these obscure names, and good at it, however, this one was just listed in his journals. KP Botany 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

José de Gálvez

Hi Robert,

Thank you for the information, I'll have translation work soon regarding our old friend José ;-)

May I say, my best wishes go along with you for the coming week and I hope you'll be soon ready for new great contributions on Wikipedia.

Kind regards. PhilFree 09:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Luis Echeverria, 67th President of Mexico

Though your're correct (in terms of total number of Mexican Presidents). The Mexican Government recognized him as the 67th President, that's why Felipe Calderon is listed as the 73rd President. GoodDay 17:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But it makes no sense to claim he is the 67th president when our own list has him as the 83rd president, and there are still presidential terms missing from that list. The problem with using any ordinal number after the first 6 or 8 is that it's rare for any two lists to agree about who should be included. So there is a definitional problem to start with, and a practical problem about which list to follow besides. Putting any number there implies that the situation is much less complex than it is, and that the issue has been resolved. It hasn't been resolved by historians, who still differ. The list in Enciclopedia de México, probably the best source on this topic (but not perfect), has him as the 85th president, although they don't use an actual number. That is also a Mexican government publication, from the Department of Education. It makes no sense to assign a definitive number without first having a definitive list. --Rbraunwa 21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then, there's but one thing to do, put him down as the 85th President. Which would make Calderon the 91st President; I mean who'd know better about Mexican Presidents, then the Mexican Government (the Mexican people). GoodDay 23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're right; there's no definitive number. Not numbering the Mexican Presidents is the best way to go. I like your idea, best. GoodDay 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Estrella de granjero de diligencia
		Le concedo esta estrella por su trabajo diligente en el sujeto de Presidentes de México. Tubezone 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. This is my first barnstar. I really like Mexican history, and since I can read Spanish there are a lot of resources available to me. I just try to synthesis the information in my sources and put it into a readable English article. I particularly thought Juan Álvarez deserved a good article. He's one of my Mexican heroes. --Rbraunwa 16:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit partial to Juan myself as some of my in-laws live in Chilapa de Alvarez. I certainly learned something, I had no idea he was involved in the Pastry War. BTW, I hope things down there in Oaxaca are bien tranquilo. Tubezone 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 4 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juan N. Méndez, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and more

File:Orden of guadalupe.jpg

File:Flag of Mexico 1864.png

I hereby award you the Medal of the Order of the Third Mexican Empire by virtue of your tireless contributions to articles related to this most noble nation. -- Rune Welsh.

Just wanted to say thanks for your brilliant work updating the articles of important Mexican and Latin American figures. As a token of recognition I present you with the (spurious, of course) Order of the Third Mexican Empire.

By the by, I finally removed the numbering that was still in some Mexican President articles. This should settle the issue once and for all. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rune Welsh. Thanks for the great award. It's nice to be appreciated, and I'm glad you like the articles. And thanks for removing the ordinals from the articles. I'd done some of that, but I hadn't gone through systematially.

I've been meaning to send you a note. I've done some work trying to straighten out the presidential terms and dates at List of Presidents of Mexico, but there is still a long way to go. Here's what I've done:

I compared five sources to establish the most likely dates for the presidential terms I've looked at:

• Enciclopedia de México. Mexico City, 1988.
• García Puron, Manuel, México y sus gobernantes, v. 2. Mexico City: Joaquín Porrua, 1984.
• Orozco Linares, Fernando, Gobernantes de México. Mexico City: Panorama Editorial, 1985.
• World Statesmen: Mexico
• The list before I made any changes

These all seem to be independent lists, in that no two of them always agree. There is a lot of disagreement, in fact, not only in the dates but to a lesser extent in what terms and presidents make the lists. But they are all good sources. I listed them in the order I assigned weight to them, with Enciclopedia de México being the most reliable in my opinion. But if two or more sources agreed, I gave them extra weight, regardless of which sources they were. I also used internal evidence when I could (other dates about what happened in a presidential term that could be used to decide between possibilities, or other clues). And I did some other Internet searches, although it's hard to establish whether Internet sources are independent, or just copies of one of my other sources.

In any case, there was still some interpretation required. I found the best dates (in my opinion), but I don't think every date is precisely accurate. That's a problem I don't know how to get around, but I believe my list, as far as I've gotten with it, is probably better than any of my sources. I have definitely found dates that are unquestionably erroneous, and I've probably found some of those in all the sources.

Here's how to tell whether I've evaluated a date in List of Presidents of Mexico. I found that the date formats were all of the form October 27 1833 (without the comma). The ones I evaluated and made a decision about now have a comma inserted: October 27, 1833. This doesn't show up when you view the article, only when you edit it. Whenever I made a change in the list, I made the corresponding change in the president's article. There is still a lot of work to do, not only with the dates but with things like Benito Juárez's continuous term (not two terms on each side of Maximilian). But it's a start anyway.

I think there may be some problems maintaining this. It's only natural that someone coming across a slightly different date would think that the one on our list is an error. As I say, that's no doubt true in some cases, but I would argue that my changes shouldn't be modified without good reason and supporting sources. That's the only way to try to get a coherent list, I think.

Finally, I am going in for major surgery on Thursday, so I won't be able to continue working on this for some time. Weeks at least. That's unfortunate, but what can you do?

--Rbraunwa 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I second the award, although I have no idea what it is, but award it for floral explorations of South America. I'll miss watching you tweak articles here and there, plus your major additions, until you're back. KP Botany 23:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)