Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:57, 9 July 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Cali567, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Rockero 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: War over ethnic relations

Hi cali just read your message and have had a look at the new developments on the Filipino page. added a few comments.

White Hispanic

I think you should add other pics. It seems unfair to have one person be the representative of an entire group. SamEV 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me add: Especially one so young, just trying to make it in Hollywood (doing well so far). Why burden her, and her alone, in some article about race? Let's spread out this burden is what I'm saying. Find a pic of someone else and then put them back, together. Or leave the article pic-less. SamEV 04:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mestizo

Please explain your last edit in more detail. SamEV 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hispanics and Filipinos

What do you mean 2% of Filipinos are related to Hispanics? I am not referring to genetics or descent, I am refering to ethnicity or culture. Over 80% of Filipinos are Lowland Christians. These are the groups which have Hispanic influence. I think you are confusing terms. I hope this comment ends that confusion. Thanks. --Chris S. 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing race and ethnicity. The two are not the same. I strongly agree with you that 2% or 3% (or whatever minute percentage) of Filipinos are genetically related to Spaniards. However, that is not the issue here. The Filipino people article is an article about an ethnic group (please look up the article) and not a race. The concept of ethnicity is not merely restricted to genetics and ideas about race, but it also includes culture, language, religion, a common history, etc.

Also, neither is Hispanic a racial term. It is a cultural/ethnic term. Hispanics covers descendants of Europeans, African slaves, Native Americans, and everybody else in between. The ex-president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori (he has Japanese parents) is even Hispanic. Hispanics are not monolithic as you believe them to be.

When the Spaniards colonized the Philippine archipelago for over three hundred years, they radically changed many of the country's ethnic groups. The Tagalog of today is not the Tagalog of yesterday. The Visayan of today is not the Visayan of yesterday. Tagalogs, Visayans, Ilocanos, Bicolanos, etc. have had their culture dramatically altered by those three crucial centuries. Our culture is more Hispanic. Our brand of Roman Catholicism is Hispanic. Our traditional dress is Spanish. Our food has Hispanic influence. Most of our surnames are Spanish. Our languages have thousands of Spanish words. Our festivals are Hispanic. Our music is Spanish. And Spanish was the official language of the Philippines until 1973. I could go on.

Your analogy of Americans being Roman is flawed. For one thing, the Romans never conquered the United States. A better analogy would be the British being related to Americans via culture. I hope you understand now. Thanks. --Chris S. 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, be mindful of the three-revert rule (I am subject to it too, so I can't rv at the moment). Second, sign your name by typing in ~~~~.

If you look back at the ethnic group page, you will find "Ethnic groups are also often united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, ritualistic, or religious traits." Because Filipinos and Hispanics overwhelmingly share many of those common traits, and in fact, they come from a common source, they are considered related.

You said "Most Filipinos WANT to be associated with Hispanics...and that is why it is on that page as a related ethnic group...no other reason." Oh, come on now, don't be silly. I am not putting it there because I want to be related to Hispanics. I am merely stating a fact, nothing more. We have a common history with many Latin American countries.

You write "So, why in the U.S. are the various Latin American ethnic groups plus the Spanish typically collectivized as "Hispanics"...and Filipinos are not??? Because they are not!" You are implying that the I believe that Filipinos should be listed as Hispanics. That is far from the truth. There are many Filipinos who believe they are Hispanic, and I am not one of them; I am vehemently opposed to this labeling. However, this does not mean that I know that we are related to them.

You wrote "Why was it illegal for Filipinos in the 1800's to marry Whites (of German or Mexican extraction)???" You mean in the early 20th century. Most Filipinos did not come to the Philippines until then. Are you and I reading the same Filipino history book? ;-) --Chris S. 05:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Filipino people

Please read WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOT. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 06:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the English Misplaced Pages, every contribution you or I make, which means any statement we write, must be properly supported by a reference or citation per WP:V and WP:CITE. All Wikipedians subscribe to these policies, like it is our bible! It is simply the policy in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, it will be subject to WP:NOT. You can respond in my talk page if these clearly written response of mine is still unclear and I will spell it out again for you. Okey? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Which goes without saying that for as long as your statement/s is not properly cited, especially for "mature articles," new contributions will be reverted, until the proper citation is provided. gets mo? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To add, provide a proper reference or citation to your statements and I will be happy to let your contribution stay in the article. I hope you learned something today. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

re: learned something

hahahaha! I did not even think nor do I care if Filipinos are not related to Hispanics. I am just pointing the Misplaced Pages policies that apply to your edit/s. hehehe As for my WL? it couldn't be better! While my RL is very outstanding! I live in a wonderful world! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Pinay06"

A reply from Javier Ruescas

Javier Ruescas of Spain asked me to send the following message to you.

A bunch of nonsense.....

Yes, Javier Ruescas is real (as if it mattered...). He is a member of Círculo Hispano-Filipino (Hispanic-Filipino circle). Come on over to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hispanofilipino/ and you can participate. I've been forwarding your comments and mine to that group, so they already know you. We're a friendly bunch. Sometimes. lol. :-) --Chris S. 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way the reason that I told you to sign your name correctly is because when you sign your name, it is not coming out as a clickable link. Just text. --Chris S. 04:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

By the way, I saw your comment about me in BrendelSignature's talk page, calling me a fanatic. I'd like to remind you, no personal attacks. It is a blockable offense. So this is your first warning.

On a personal note, it is interesting that you are labeling me a fanatic. Someone at Hispanofilipino called me that, but it was because I did not believe that Filipinos should be considered Hispanic and that Spanish shouldn't be the official language. Life is lonely in the middle, apparently. ;-P --Chris S. 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature

I figured it out. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Preferences make sure you leave RAW SIGNATURE unchecked. Hope that helps. --Chris S. 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peace

!Mexicans should stick together..Soory about the brown pride issue. I'm just having a bad day. Peace be with you amigo...Viva Mexico!! -- :) Ramírez 02:44 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hispanics in the Philippines in the article Hispanic

Sorry but, why do you remove an entire section without saying anything? What about discussing it in the talk page?

It's a fact there were Hispanics in the Philippines. I have got family in the Philippines, and they are Hispanics, and they have been there for more than 100 years, since the times when the Philippines were Spain. The fact that most of the population of the Philippines do not speak Spanish doesn't change the fact that:

1. Spain has influenced the Philippines like nobody else: it's not just the name, it's the unity, the fact that all these islands constitute an united state, comes from the fact that they were a single administrative region inside the Spanish Empire. The culture too, and the language, check the articles Hispanic cultural legacy in the Philippines, check Filipinos of Spanish descent, check Chavacano language, check Tagalog language, check Filipino language.
2. Instead Spain had not influenced the Philippines, they were under the control of Spain for 500 years, and there has been always an important community that, though small in number, ruled the country for 500 years. That's a fact. And that's also what was explained in the section.

So there are no reasons to remove it. And instead there were reasons, go and talk about it in the talk page, thanks. Onofre Bouvila 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey could you please stop removing or cutting the section of the Hispanics in the Philippines in the article Hispanic? I think you disagree with it because you think that the section talks about all the filipinos, but if you read it you can see it is not so: the section is not saying that all the filipino people are "hispanics": it is saying that due to the spanish possession of the Philippines, there has always been a small minority of Hispanics (from Spain, Mexico, etc) living there. And these are the "Hispanics in the Philippines" that the section talks about. Apart from this, the section also talks about the Hispanic influence in the Philippines. But you don't need to change the title from "Hispanics in the Philippines" to "Hispanic Influence in the Philippines" because indeed there were Hispanics in the Philippines, and that's what the text talks about (apart from the obvious cultural influence).

In addition, take a look at your edit: . You have moved the section of the Hispanics in the Philippines in the middle of the Hispanics in the United States section, so the sections of "demographics", "history", "political trends" of the Hispanics in the United States are now in the section of Hispanics in the Philippines.

Finally, I'm not sure what is your purpose with this section, because I have seen that you have edited it twice, but you also removed it some days before (I added it again yesterday).

You have changed "Other Philippine languages, such as the Tagalog, were not entirely replaced, but received strong influences from the Spanish. New languages also originated, such as the Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole language, or the Filipino, a standardized version of the Tagalog that serves as the national language in the country (note that if the Spaniards had not conquered the islands and unified them under the same government, nowadays probably we could not be speaking of the Philippines as a single unity)" by "Other Philippine languages received influences from Spanish. A new language also originated, Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole language". I don't see the point, because the way it was before mentions more examples and explains them. So I don't really see the point of your edit. You also removed the link to "Spanish Filipinos", which I don't understand, because that is the main article for the Spaniards living in the Philippines.

Anyway, discuss it in the talk page before doing such big edits, please.

Thanks.

Onofre Bouvila 10:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

I see you have changed your strategy: at the beginning, you wanted to erase the section Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_Philippines, but now you are trying to include it in a wider section called "Hispanics in Asia". Well, I encourage you to add information about the Hispanics in Asia, but I do not think it is appropiate to do it in detriment of the section Hispanic#Hispanics in the Philippines. You could, for example, do a wider section called "Hispanics in Asia", and inside that section, we could introduce the actual section of Hispanics in the Philippines, along with other sections such as Hispanics in Guam, and stuff. Just like the secton Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania, which has smaller sections talking about the different peoplesfrom Spain.

But that is not your objective, right? You do not want to upgrade the article; what you want, is to dissolve the section Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_Philippines inside a wider section called "Hispanics in Asia", but without mentioning the case of the Philippines in a separate section (which is what it should be done, since it is the most important case), and you introduce sentences such as "There are small populations of Hispanics in Asia. In the Philipines, for example, only around 2% of the population is Hispanic": all in all, your aim is to mitigate the importance of the Hispanics in the Philippines.

In addition, I don't know if you even realize what you are doing in your edits. Please, check this one: . You are introducing your super-section of "Hispanics in Asia" inside the section of Hispanic#Hispanics in the United States! You don't even know what are you editing, and where you are doing it.

Furthermore, this is the 3rd time I ask you to stop doing this in your talk page. It is also the umpteenth time that I ask you to discuss your edits in the topic I created for the section you are repeatedly editing: Talk:Hispanic#I_added_a_section_for_the_Hispanics_in_the_Philippines.

You should understand that the objective of the section Hispanic#Hispanics in the Philippines is not to put at the same level the Filipinos, the Spaniards and the Hispanic Americans: its objective is just to explain the history of the Hispanics in the Philippines. We are not saying that all the Filipinos are Hispanics; we are just saying that there were, and there are, Hispanics in the Philippines.

Well, in conclusion, I think this is the last time I lose my time coming here to ask you to stop it. Next time, I'll have to call an admin. Thanks Onofre Bouvila 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your Last and final Warning!

This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. . The next time you become un co-operative to your fellow wikipedia editors or erazed informations without providing valid reasons as you did to the Mexico article, Hispanics etc. I will blocked you from using wikipedia. Saludos!--Ramírez 06:00 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of informations in the Mexico article

Reply: Hey Cali567! I've got a question for you? It seems you have a hatred towards Mexicans of Filipinos descents? hey Vato! Why homes? --Ramírez72 June 14 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Americans are not related to ancient Italic people Latins

Mexican Americans are not related to ancient Italic people Latins. Please, see Ancient Italic peoples.

Latins lived in Latium in Italian Peninsula.

Spaniards are related to Iberians who lived in Iberian Peninsula. Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula were cuturally Romanized after Roman conquest of the Iberian peninsula.

Modern use of Latin is limited to linguistic-cultural groups. Please, see Latin peoples (linguistic).

Suspesion of Sockpuppetry: User:Cali567

I have nothing to be a shamed off, I am doing my job as Wikipatroler to eliminate suspected Users who use sockpuppetry identities. I be will monitoring your edit actions, including User talk:Al-Andalus and User:C.Kent87 who might be used by the same person. -- Ramírez 17:12 July 10, 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: To, User:Cali567! You are a suspected sock puppet user who is believed to be using various identities including User talk:Al-Andalus, User:C.Kent87 and User:68.110.8.21. My job is to eliminate users who violates the Misplaced Pages's terms and regulations on sock puppetry issue. No matter what your opinions of me, which i don't care, I will continue to monitor your edit actions including many others. --Ramírez July 11, 2007 (UTC)

Sup mate

Dude I removed your picture from the Mexico article because if we include it then we would have to include another picture of indigenous peoples plus the current one that's be 3 pics and the section is too small to support 3 pictures, I was gonna move your picture to the white mexican article but I see that it's already there, well that's it, cheers.

P.D. Hablas español? Supaman89 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Weitz

{{subst: Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.|Chris Weitz}} A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. SpinningSpark 11:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Argentine American Article

Have you even read the source? You are saying because there are people with indigenous genetics then they are mestizo. No. Just because they have indigenous genetics that does not mean most Argentines are not mestizo, like you are trying to claim in the Argentine American article. Its just like I said in Talk:Argentina, in the US, if a White American that has 1% African genetics that does not make that person multiracial. So why in your opinion that if people who are either probably 10~1% indigenous are mestizo or castizo? Read your source well, it says most Argentines have probably one indigenous ancestor. This is why I delete your info because you are outright lying claiming most Argentines are mestizo and castizo.

Also, if you look at Argentine Americans, not Argentine of Argentina, in the census they label themselves as White Hispanic. This information doesn't really have any importance in Argentine American, just leave it in it own personal section in Demographics of Argentina. Also, most Argentines will focus more on there immigrant ancestors. So why put this in this article, and place it in every section that mentions the European Immigration, like what you did in Demographics of Argentina? Lehoiberri (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again with your "Argentines are Mesizo". Again no there not. Like I said, again, if a White American is 10~1% African that does not make the person Biracial. If you obliviously don't know, Argentines refer to there immigrant ancestors as Grandparents or great-grandparents, because if you look the generation they came should be around that. Lets say an immigrant marries an colonial resident who is mesitzo. There child is Castizo, then that child gets married with a person of white ancestry, then there child is now white in the Latin American Caste system.

This is my problem about this issue, people like you will say Argentines are Mestizo, but they are not. If you look at the research say Argentines have at least 1 inginous ancestor, that would make most Argentines around 10~1% indigenous. And looking by the Latin American Caste system, Argentines are technically white. And also, no one is trying to make Argentina as a Nordic country. Argentina is a mixture of Spain and Italy. Most Argentines are Spanish and/or Italian descent. And if you don't know, Spanish and Italians are not the lightest White people, especially Southern Spaniards and Southern Italians. Argentina's Italian descendants are predominantly Southern Italian.

And since you mention about myself, I don't look like your typical Hispanic since I have light brown hair, blue eyes, and I am really pale. Many people think I am a White American. Here in the US, the stereotypical Hispanic image is a mestizo person with black curly hair, dark brown eyes, and brown skin. I know that Hispanics are the "rainbow race" since there are whites and blacks Hispanics. But American society does not see that. Lehoiberri (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

re: prot

No problem. It wasn't protected because of vandalism, so don't worry about that, but to get you folks to talk it out (edit warring is not good) :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cali567,

There is no intent to downgrading Amerindian people as you claim. This famous study though very controversial, has created since a very long time several edit wars not only on Demographics of Argentina article also in the argentina's. To prevent this kind of edit wars on 25 february 2008 I added a full section of every single genetic study of the argentine genome. So there is no need to re state the same section on the article. I hope you can understand the issue. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The purported "controversy" of the study is not inherent to the study itself. The controversy is due to the implications of its findings. Let's try to find a solution amongst ourselves. If not, we can follow up the conflict resolution procedure: (1) request a third-party opinion (2) Request for Mediation, and if all fails, (3) Request for Arbitration. Hopefully, we will be able to reach a consensual solution before having to Request for Mediation/Arbitration. --the Dúnadan 14:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "White" Argentine Photo

If you want to remove a picture from White Latin American, talk about it in Talk:White Latin American. I am giving you a warning, there are some editors in that page that don't like it that you remove pictures without a debate, and they will warn you that they will call an administrator on you if you continue to remove pictures. It happened to me when I tried to remove a picture in that page. Just debate about it and let, all the editors of that page to give an opinion. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Argentina Articles.

Hello,

Currently I am trying to take a wikibreak. When I get get back from it, I may look into what you suggested. Nevertheless, this is the complicated side of Misplaced Pages: when some editor gets personally involved with what should be neutral, factual content... Like your pal Lehoiberri. When I suggested that he may have felt strongly about that information because of being a half-argentine, half-chilean american, he took great offense in my comment and reported me to the Wikiquette something. I really don't understand how some people can get so worked up about ethnicity. On the other hand, I also don't get why have so many articles on the issue: White Latin American, White Hispanic and Latino Americans, Castizo, Mestizo, etc, etc, etc... Why the fixation with dividing and labeling people into what are arbitrary categories anyway?

I also feel that the information should be included, but I don't want to get into another conflict with that guy. So, in the meantime, while I'm on a wikibreak, I'll think of a way to approach the issue and try to reach consensus. But from what I saw on your talk page, he seems to be dead set on not allowing the information to be included. We'll see. –w2bh _{talk•contribs} 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexican American article

Obviously you are inclining towards the white people. There are people called "Latina brown." That Mexican American article with all colonialist whites are a disgrace to proud brown Mexicans. Don't be whitewashed with history. In the United States, Mexicans are brown people. Americans will always consider white Mexicans white people. They are never Mexican. It is just simple racial aspect. Be proud of your heritage if you are one, but including many Spanish people as "Mexican" is a simple disgrace to proud people and proud culture. Remember Aztec that the white people just destroyed. Be open minded but please don't include 90% white people's picture in a "Mexican" article. "Latino brown" 71.237.70.49 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recient edits

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Fercho85 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

About "warning"

Hello Cali:

First, I have to tell you that the same "warning" can be used in his case, since he has reverted every single addition that you made. You should tell him that the 3 Reverts Rule applies to every member without exceptions.

About your edits, I think that if your information is sourced properly, it should be included. It doesn't matter if he do not like the data you are adding, if it is sourced, it belongs to the article. Just be careful about your wording, always try to be encyclopedic.

Contribuitions that are sourced are not considered vandalism, and about edit-warring, he just doesn't have real arguments to sustain that, it is just HIS perception because he doesn't like what you added.

The best idea is to be civil and explain that to him. If he do not seem to understand, or is not willing to understand, you should ask an administrator to take a look into the issue. I hope I helped you with my comments. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias 08:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you something, he's saying that a "consensus" was reached, and uses that argument to revert your sourced edits (I doubt that since those article are different). Your should ask him to show you the actual discusion page where that "consensus" was reached. However, per wikipedia policy, if such a consensus (if not fake) was reached, it can change. AlexCovarrubias 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

White people

Grammar counts at Misplaced Pages. I reverted your edit because you repeated, word for word, most of one sentence in an ungrammatical mess. I have looked at both of your more recent edits and neither are redundant, and neither are ungrammatical, so I will not revert them. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring

Hello, I've seen your edits to several article regarding the demographics of Argentina and see that you have been revert warring at times. I understand that content disputes can get people stirred up at times but please use talk pages to discuss major changes to articles in order to establish consensus for any major changes. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't get it?

I have to repeat this again since you seem to not to pay attention to me nor what you are sourcing. That study does not say 56% of Argentines are mestizo. It says 56% of Argentines have an indigenous ancestor in their maternal or paternal linage. Do you even know what Mestizo means? If you look at that study and use the caste system of Latin America, that makes Argentines White. Please stop the manipulation. Thank you. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Dear Cali567 there has been a consensus on Demographics of Argentina talk page and not respecting it is considered vandalism. Please when you are using a user page refer to other users without making any personal attacks.

Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please when you are using a user page avoid making any personal attacks. You claim that the study is not cited when as a matter of fact it is well stated and twice in different sections (Indigenous peoples and genetical studies). --Fercho85 (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cali, if you don't agree with the previous consensus feel free to discuss it a its talk page. But don't make edits without discuss them formally at its talk page --Fercho85 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)