User talk:Pershing10
Hello, Pershing10, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Your stated reasons for firstly removing the hatnote and that sentence, and secondly now PRODding the whole article for deletion, don't make much sense to me:
- The disambiguating hatnote is perfectly appropriate, there are other independent usages/occurrences of 'mexica' listed at that dabpg
- I really fail to see how a neutrally worded sentence like that constitutes "recruitment propaganda"
- While the article could certainly be much improved, it is a valid and distinct topic (one that is actually quite unrelated to the contemporary 'mexica movement' you seem to deplore). See the extensive prior discussions at talk:Aztec for an account of the various distinctions btw 'Mexica', 'Aztec', 'Nahua', etc.
I have removed the prod notice and restored the text.
If you think my actions constitute "vandalism", then you are free to report them at WP:AIV, WP:ANI or similar.
If you think the article should be deleted, then take a proposal to WP:AFD.
Otherwise, it would be appreciated if you ceased using these roundabout ways to remove mention and links to some political/social stance you evidently don't much approve of.
ps., and FYI: I am in no way affiliated or involved with the 'mexica movement', 'la raza' or any other such group or political philosophy. Personally I find most of what's advanced and claimed under those guises unconvincing, and actually far removed from any interest I might have. If you check the edit history of Aztlan for eg you'll see that I and others have worked to keep out overdone and POV claims by some who are apparently sympathetic to that cause. And I find the use of terms like 'mexica' and 'aztlan' in those contexts to be a misappropriation and distortion of their historical meanings.
But regardless of whatever opinion you, me, or anyone else might have on that socio-political movement, it meets notability criteria for inclusion and as such should not just be written out entirely from articles where it is indeed appte to make mention of it. As long as statements are neutral and verifiable, which is the case here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)