User talk:SamEV/Archive 2

Archive 1

Massu

Tx.--Epeefleche 06:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(untitled) (1)

They're the arms of the kingdom of Sicily. Michael Sanders 11:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:British Latinos

Hello SamEV, could you look at Template:British Latinos (Template talk:British Latinos) and see what you think about it...? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! Could you please go back and comment on Template:British Latinos (Template talk:British Latinos)? Thank you again. The Ogre (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:British Latinos

Template:British Latinos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — The Ogre (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

excuse me?

what was wrong with my edits? how are they making a point? Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Latino (demonym), where you'll see how that matter has been much discussed before. If you made an innocent mistake, I retract the comment. But you seem like an experienced editor. SamEV (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

hang on i'll have a look at the discussion... but i can add a reference, which was what i was just about to do before you changed it... and no i am not experienced at all haha! i only joined a week or two ago... and im still adopted. But thanks for the compliment anyway... lol Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I went by all the messages you have on your talk page. I didn't stop to look at the dates on them. SamEV (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... i got pretty well known rather quickly haha... but yeah... anyway... ive edited what I think the page should be like... giving a reference on the discussion page... that way people can discuss it. Dont delete it yet... just see what people think. And what do you think? why did you delete it in the first place? i wasnt exactly sure on that even from reading the discussion page Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove it, per Wikipedia's rules. Let's discuss any changes on the article's talk page. Leave a message there if you want. SamEV (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

oh... well yeah i did leave a message on it ^^ Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the page. And i don't understand how you can say that there is a need in any way to block me. I have done nothing wrong... Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, as I said in my reply at Latino (demonym), you don't have to worry about that. I haven't even reported you b/c you're so new. SamEV (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

IMF

http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/index.aspx ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Countries with Latin Populations

Hello SamEV! We seem to have yet another problem with a racialized "Latin" template, I'm speaking of Template:Countries with Latin Populations (Talk). I've tagged as OR - could you comment please? Thank you. The Ogre 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again SamEv. You may want to gives your thoughts at Templates for deletion - Countries with Latin Populations. Thank you! The Ogre 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor Andrew. I hope he doesn't think we're all out to get him. I just wish he'd wait till he has a better understanding of all these issues and how Wikipedia works before making those edits. SamEV 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You know... he is now permantely blocked, as well as all his sockpoppets... Such is life! The Ogre 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch ... SamEV (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian War

Thanks for adding the reference and fixing my mistake. I have been trying to improve it section by section, and am just now getting to the Hohenzollern business. I'm going to be adding a lot on the story behind the Ems Dispatch and improve the rest. Any additions would be greatly appreciated! BTW, if you could find any sources that say Vauban built the fortress at Luxembourg, message me with it. Thanks! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglo–Spanish War (1585)

Hi Sam, I saw you showed some interest in my editing of Anglo–Spanish War (1585).

The most remarkable aspect of the Edict is that the protestants were granted any rights at all, but the country remained officially catholic; that is why Henry IV had to convert in the first place and why Spain could acquiesce in an end of the war it had intervened in for religious reasons. I rewrote the passage anyway. Regards, --BertSen (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please work for Consensus

Even if you don't like something. [1] Work for a consensus or go for dispute resolution. UnclePaco (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? You practically threatened an edit war and to undo the recent progress in that article. I strongly advice you to be more genuine in your comments next time you come to my talk page. SamEV (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(untitled) (2)

oh okay —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:People of former Portuguese colonies

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:People of former Portuguese colonies, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:People of former Portuguese colonies has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:People of former Portuguese colonies, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:People of former Portuguese colonies

Hi, Jerry. I created that category but replaced it with another. In such situations, when it's a self-created category, what's the best way for me to have them deleted? SamEV (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Category:People of former Portuguese colonies 3 hours ago; do you mean undeleted? Or do you meanCategory:People of the former Portuguese colonies? And if so, why do you want it deleted? JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't check. Yes, I wanted it deleted, as I do others I created but which I then decided I had accidentally misnamed. Do I wait four days and nominate them for speedy deletion, or is there a different procedure you recommend? SamEV (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would create the new category pages, depopulate the former categories while populating the new categories. Then once the former categories are empty, I would nominate them for speedy deletion under crtieria WP:CSD#C1. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. No, I don't mean Category:People of the former Portuguese colonies. But I see that the others have either been deleted or tagged already. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Emperor's name

Hi,

In the past you made edits the name of the emperors of Japan. A discussion about this topic has just opened (once again!) You are free to express your opinion here. Thanks. Švitrigaila (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Geography of Dominican Republic

I do not know how to restore half of my edit on the Geography section. Before my edition, there were too many things wrong (it said, for example, 3 main mountain ranges and really they are 4 main ranges, not including the Cordillera Oriental, a minor one) and repeated (the islands Beata and Saona and Lake Enriquillo are repeated); and is a "poetic" language, not the proper language in a geographic section. And I saw in the article of other countries that the section Geography is not subdivided, which I think is right for an introductory article; it should be subdivided in the Geography of the Dominican Republic article. And that kid (?) BigGabriel555 wrote me (without signing) that he was going to revert my edition because there were not cites (and he never includes a cite); I can put the cites, if needed. Before I said that I was not going to write in that article but the problem is that it is the first article on the Dominican Republic and it has a lot of problems. But it seems that I will keep working on other articles that are empty or just stubs. Thanks for your support. --Pepemar2 (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will do as you say, changing just a few sentences, even if I do not see the point of it if a whole section is right. But I will try; it will take me time to work in other articles; and I work in Spanish Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, too, and I doesn't want to spend my time arguing. --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BigGabriel555

I'm having trouble assuming good faith with this one after all his recent tendentious editing and abuse of socks. What do you think?--Rosicrucian^Talk 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

...and with reverts like these, I really don't know what kind of point he's trying to make.--Rosicrucian^Talk 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are discussing this problem. Maybe he is working with good faith but I think that he has a bipolar personality; when he is "maniac", he is extremely active without taking in account any consequence. If he is bipolar, the euphoria could disappear for some days and then return (of course, it is not the case if he is under medication). But it is a big problem. --Pepemar2 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have started a RfC about this, and would appreciate you weighing in as you're part of the dispute.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just added my name. The madness has to end some day (soon, I hope). SamEV (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to keep my changes in the Geographic section; it is madness. I have not changed many things in other sections because most of them are out of my field of knowledge. But geography I know a lot; I have travelled all over my country since I was a kid (I am very old now). Even if I do not agree with the figure from BigGrabriel555 (see my comments on the Discussion page), I will not change it to see if we could get some peace. --Pepemar2 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you should change it. Because then if he changes it back he'll finally get blocked, as it's mandatory. Así que por favor, reviértalo. Nos estaría haciendo un favor a todos, y a Wikipedia. (De veras). SamEV (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, don't. He already reverted four times. He can be reported already. SamEV (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

CC'ed from my talkpage

Rosicrucian, do you think we should report him? SamEV (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can. He's reverted after being warned by an admin. I've already added the latest incident to the RfC.--Rosicrucian^Talk 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I had the report ready. But I decided to wait (while I had dinner) to see if Caribbean H.Q. would notice Gabriel's last revert. I even left him a message. I came back about the same time you restored the article. Gabriel's last edit seemed to have some vandalism thrown in for good measure, btw. SamEV (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...and he's still reverting. I've added the latest revert to the 3RR report.--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dominican Republic

Not a problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

The report against you on the 3RR noticeboard has been closed. You clearly made four reverts on the page, this one having a clearly inappropriate edit summary, but I have concluded that the report was frivolous or vexatious and since the page is semi-protected the IP won't be making further edits. Please be careful not to violate 3RR in the future and remember that reverts of vandalism are only exempt in the case of simple vandalism, which is something that anyone who has never seen the page before would identify as vandalism (i.e. blanking sections, adding cuss words, etc.) If consensus is definitely against an editor, then let other editors make the reverts instead. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS if you think that an IP is a banned user, list on WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

UnclePaco

I didn't know "!@#$" [note: edited by SamEV] was an inappropriate slang term. I have blocked the account indefinitely. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it is in the D.R., at least. SamEV (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

White Hispanics

I'm just having a bad day -- nevermind. Regards. Why is it that even when I sign it appears as if I didn't? Am I doing something wrong? --21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Mig

Thanx for the tip -- kindest regards and all the best -- Mig 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • contribs)

Dominican national symbols

The fact is that we have, besides the flag and coat of arms, a national bird and a national flower, that's all; at least declared by laws. Of course we could include other things but it is necessary that is by tradition, not by law (for example, merengue as a national dance). For me, monuments should go on a different page, and it would be a good one, with so many monuments. The cultural institutions, such as museum and others, could go in another page relate to Culture in the Dominican Republic. We have to start writing new articles instead of increasing the size of this; when I try to look for any information, I find that there are few Dominican pages of interest or with enough information. I do not know if you can develop those pages; I do not have much time now because we are having some problems in the Spanish Wikipedia. In any case, you know that you can count on me. --Pepemar2 (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is ok to write something about some monuments together with symbols; anyhow, monuments are symbols of a historical event or person. But I think that it would be nice to develop an independent article on Dominican monuments, or maybe a Category:Monuments of the Dominican Republic and add articles to that category. I will try to do something about that and I will let you know. But we are having a lot of problem because a lot of photos and images of the Dominican Republic (in English and Spanish) are being deleted because of violation of copyright or something similar. I do not know if I can keep working without knowing if the format will be completely different the next time that I visit it. --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign's Largest Posession

Is Canada (in terms of land area) not the UK. The UK of course is where the Sovereign's largest number of subjects reside. YourPTR! (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. SamEV (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

white latin america Cristiana Frixione

my friend if you look white you are white i look white and am american but maybe somewhere down the line i have a non white ancestors but i look white so there for i am same thing in latin america,in other words just because you cant trace there whole ancestry does not mean they cant be consuidered white, also there is no such thing as a one drop rule in latin america like in north america and there is no such thing as a pure race includeing the caucasian race you just add to the ignorance that everybody in latin america is just a mutt and are the reason we even need to have articles like this--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, I agree with you, so your message is misdirected. This will become obvious if you re-read my comment and others I made there before. SamEV (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

See the talk page. I think some of these things need careful attention. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalclearchanges (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Latino (demonym)

EDGARR is back... The Ogre (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry you missed me I was on Vacation. I missed you guys also. Hey SamEV, I liked your above response very much. Also your work in White Hispanic. Why is it we are having difficulty in the latino article.. Seems to me we are on the same page on just about everything else EDGARR (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, I posted something for you in my talk page, please view.EDGARR (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and found it encouraging. But let me say that Branden's opinion is not relevant, as it is not specific to Latinos, the subject of the article. The other point you made about including the rest of the American Heritage quote has validity, but it really belongs in the Controversy section, IMO. SamEV (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add in the controversy section. Branden's is considered the foremost authority on the subject, his studies apply to all human beings. Writes good books, check him out.EDGARR (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to work on the D.R. page

Hello SamEV its BigGabriel555 i was looking at the D.R. page today and i saw all these need citations and verification stuff and i wanted to tell you that we need to work on the page alot so if you have any spare time maybe you can help fix the page up thank you

We need to work on the D.R. page

Hello SamEV its BigGabriel555 i was looking at the D.R. page today and i saw all these need citations and verification stuff and i wanted to tell you that we need to work on the page alot so if you have any spare time maybe you can help fix the page up thank you. BigGabriel555 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK

what do you think of Latin Europe now? (it took me ages by the way so if you don't like it I will have to drop dead) ;) 89.241.246.10 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much i will help as much as i can. BigGabriel555 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

notable Latinos

Hi,SamEV, I was going to add a another sections to the Latino article called Notable Latinos. However you say their is already an article with that title. Can you tell me how to find it? I did a search, but nothing came up. Thanks in advance...EDGARR (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(untitled) (3)

With regard to the Indo-Europeans and the Indo-European Homeland pages The statements that are being contradicted are unsupported. They are flat statements without citation. If anyone wants citations for my contradictory statements I will provide them -- none should be in doubt. There is no evidence that Hattic was spoken in all of Anatolia in 6000 BC - 7000 BC to the exclusion of any form of IE language. The burden would be on the author to support such an extreme view. The statement is of course biased and definitely POV and that is why my statements are being objected to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwelltold (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So support your statements. What good is it to fight unsupported statements with equally unsupported ones? See the obvious symmetry? SamEV (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Info

Hello SamEV! I don't know if you know this, but User:Crystalclearchanges is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Iamandrewrice. Just thought you should know... By the way, I've changed my mind regarding the gallery in Latin Europe - the stuff the other user said convinced me. I shouldn't have let myself carry away as I did! I am now against a gallery in such an article. See you around! The Ogre (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, check his talk history - it's very instructive... The Ogre (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with my contributions? huh? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why can I not just be left to get on with editing??? :( Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As of now you are, aren't you? You haven't been blocked. SamEV (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Its kind of hard to concentrate on articles when I'm told I'm going to be blocked, and the "suspected sockpuppets" mentioned on the list are literally growing every 5 minutes, so I think someone is up to something here. I don't understand what is supposed to come of this. I was just trying to get on with my editing, and actually have a good reputation for once, but no, i'm never allowed am i... ¬_¬ Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

hello... can you go to the WP:Administrator's noticeboard of incidents or whatever it is called... as there is a thread about me there, and one person seems to think I am being disruptive. Can you join in the conversation please? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI there thats the right link... its the bottom thread... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out. SamEV (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Check your email. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Latin Europe

Hi. No, of course I didn't swear it off. I wasn't that active yesterday, and only took up threads where my replies were bound to be more concise. I do apologize for leaving you hanging.

However, as I have said, that is not my main interest at the moment. Outside of some business I had to attend to in real life, there are other projects I had promised to deal with, and they are rather distant from the topic of that article. My interst was also sucked into a debate, after a user decided to aim a racial slur my way and I felt I needed to report him. It also may turn out that we are on completely different time zones (it's now early morning where I'm at). My main interest was in pointing out some flaws with the article - which, I should stress again, I do not attribute to any particular user, and I do not trace back to malevolence on anybody's part (though I see some evidence of POV pushing, it is most likely the deed of CCC and, more recently, the one user who keeps adding some countries to the list). I wanted to start a discussion about this, which is easier done than reshaping the whole text, and I am ready to admit that the arguments I presented so far may turn out to be the tip of the iceberg.

I will answer your question once I feel I can concentrate back on that article. This would most likely be later today, if all goes well. I did look over your post, and actually got you the first time (before you rephrased it), but I was not as involved on wiki as I would have liked to in the past day or so. Again, sorry about that. Best, Dahn (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Favor please

hello SamEV can you do the biggest favor ever for the page can you please go to yahoo and go on images and type in exactly National palace Dominican republic and upload i believe the second picture to the right i believe its the national palace i had on the Dominican Republics page i can't do it because every time i upload a picture it gets deleted so please can you do this for me i owe you big thank you so muchBigGabriel555 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you

ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh thank you for trying —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 March 2008

El Salvador

Another user fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglo article

Oye, amigo ... 'ppears we're going to agree to disagree a bit on that Anglo article. As the article is currently written, it's pretty clumsy, and talks more about what "Anglo" allegedly is not than what it is. You might take another look at the ref that's there as we continue to work on a revised version. I'll see if I can come up with more cites. PS: that former Cajun ref is now a dead link, and I'm not sure that there is support for the "non-Cajun" mention in the text. Plus those "offended by Anglo" cites are ancient (look at the dates); I'm not sure that folks are still so touchy these days as "Anglo" has come into broader usage and acceptance as simply meaning "English-speaking" rather than "English ancestry." GiveItSomeThought (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Latin American and Iberian Britons up for deletion

given your comments on the talk page, thought you might be interested Mayumashu (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference #9 in the D.R. Page

hello SamEV i was hoping if you would fix the reference #9 o the page please i dont know how to fix it myself so im hoping if you will please and thank you BigGabriel555 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Everyculture.com is an excellent source to find anything to contribute in entries for articles about Costa Rican, Panamanian, Paraguayan and Uruguayan communities of North America. I apologize if I was apparently lazy and violated any copyrights by simply copying/pasting the info. from the pages to the articles, now I reckon to done that if I was caught may be illegal. Please forgave me and you can improve or include new entries to the very articles yourself if you want. Thanks SamEV and I will accept my punishment. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Asian Americans

Afghanistan is located in the center of Asia, it's people are mutli-ethnic. The country comes within South Asia, Central Asia, or Western Asia. This would make the Afghan people living in USA as Asia Americans. Middle Eastern Americans generally refers to Arab people, Arab culture practicing people, Arab cultured nations, even the people as far from Asia as Morocco are generally considered as Middle Eastern Americans in USA. As I pointed out earlier, most of Afghanistan's population are Asian looking people while only smaller number of them have Arab looks or practice Arab style culture. Starting with the largest ethnic group of Afghanistan, the Pashtuns are same as Pakistani or Indians. The Hazaras look like orientals so they are naturally Asians. Uzbeks and Turkmen are also Asian looking people. Tajiks are Iranian (Middle Eastern) looking people and they are only 18% of the population of Afghanistan, that's according to latest statistics. The Afghan culture is very different from Arab culture, only religion ties Afghans with Middle East. Religion is not to be used because Indonesians, Pakistanis, Indians and many others in Asia practice Islam so that doesn't make those people as Middle Easterners. My conclusion is that Afghans in USA are first Asian Americans and second Middle Eastern Americans. Afghan culture is very closely bonded to the Indian subcontinent, you'll not find a single Afghan American house in USA that don't watch Indian movies or listen to Indian music. Try finding Afghans who watch or listen to Middle Eastern music, probably 1% do. I'm not trying to get on your nerves but these are facts and you have to follow them, don't worry why Afghanistan was not listed here or there maybe because they haven't got to it yet. So please try to understand and leave Afghan Americans in both Asian Americans and also in Middle Eastern Americans. It doesn't hurt to do that and I'm sure you'll not find any true Afghans who would disagree to being called Asian American.--119.30.77.35 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Afghanistan is located in the center of Asia"

It's not about location. Australia is located SE of Asia. What inference are we to make? Certainly not that most Australians, as is the case, are Western Europeans!

Most importantly, you don't have to convince me: what you do have to do is source your claims. If you can, it won't matter that I disagree with you.

It would benefit you to study our policies, beginning with WP:NOR and WP:V. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You may find this very helpful: Race and Hispanic or Latino Summary File. It contains the race codes used by the Census Bureau. SamEV (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:First Ladies and First Gentlemen

Category:First Ladies and First Gentlemen, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to fix the D.R. page

Hallo SamEV sorry to bother you but i think we need to do a complete overhaul on the D.R. page because when i saw the Puerto Rico and Cuba pages they were so good compared to the D.R. page we really need to fix the page have you seen the Santo Domingo page they deleted the image of the city from the coast. So i was wondering if we can get a group or something together like in the Puerto Rico pages WikiProject Puerto Rico its a group of people working together to make the Puerto Rico page great so i was thinking instead of individual edits we can get a group together so we can get a group together to make the D.R. page great. im sorry to bother every time i need something but i believe that your the best person to come to because you have so much experience so thank you for everythingBigGabriel555 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you so much your such a good person i will do everything i can to help you out just tell me and ill do it BigGabriel555 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SamEV (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories regarding nationality

Let's take it to the talk page because I think we can settle this maturely instead of having a CAPS LOCK-laden, John McEnroe quoting edit war over this. OK? Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) MrBlondNYC (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. SamEV (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hows it going on the D.R. stuff

hi SamEV i was wondering how it was going on the D.R. things BigGabriel555 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

alright ill make sure to do so was it difficult making the article

are you almost done

sorry to bother you SamEV i just wanted to know how its progressing so far on the D.R. project BigGabriel555 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much. But I just got started. SamEV (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Some tips for the Hispanic America article

about the article, I saw that you put that Latin America comprises english speaking countries and dutch speaking countries, but it really doesn't, check the article about latin america in wikipedia or maybe in other sources and you'll see that it doesn't include english and dutch speaking countries. And also about the Spanish language being the most spoken language in the continent, it's true, but by native speakers. English one might say to be the most spoken but only if you include the people who speak it as a second language, but in the article it's referring to native speakers when it says that hispanics have a bigger population than anglo americans. To name one source, if you check the ethnologue it'll say that Spanish has more native speakers world wide than English does. The territorial comparison could be left just with the total amount of territory that Hispanic America has without making comparisons because indeed anglo americans do have a bigger territory. And you say that in the Caribbean there are millions of english speakers but that isn't right, because Jamaica barely has 2,500,00 people and in the Lesser Antilles there aren't millions of English speakers. Spanish is way more spoken than english in the caribbean. Just compare the combined populations of D.R., Cuba, and P.R. with the population of English speakers in the Caribbean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xray221 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideas of Latin America are all over the place. In fact, too many include English- and Dutch-speaking countries. Just Google "Latin America" and you'll see the kinds of countries listed under that heading. But the scholars, and the Latin Americans themselves, tend to see it as synonymous with Ibero-America, as I wrote.

As for language-speakers, all you have to do is quote the figures provided by a source re: language speakers specifically. Keep in mind that there are people in Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Mexico who only speak native languages, not Spanish.

If you make one comparison, you should make the other. It doesn't look very good faith to make only the one you find favorable; and it won't fool anybody: in fact, it only draws attention to what you're trying to 'hide'.

As to the "Caribbean region", it also includes Guyana, Belize, Bahamas. Btw, Trinidad and Tobago has a population of over a million. SamEV (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it both ways again, in the territorial section because the message that you left on the history board I didn't get it very well but now I understand what you're trying to say with that. I'll also cite my sources so there won't be a problem with that also. The thing is that I edit in different languages (Spanish and Portuguese) so sometimes I can mess up things a little, like when I favored one over the other (but about the language and the term latin america, I'm sure that's right because I've studied it and researched it). I'm sort of new in this so it's good to have help and hear people's opinions in some aspects of the editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xray221 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

" I'll also cite my sources so there won't be a problem with that also."

Oh if only every Wikipedian did...

I'm happy to discuss and help whenever I can. SamEV (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep researching to see how I can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xray221 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sumerian king names

Yes, the titles should be changed, but I can't do it because the proper names already "exist" as (redirect) articles. Putting out proposals for things like this in the ANE *never* gets any response from anyone, from admins (who can make these moves) or anyone else. So I hold little hope of being able to get these names changed. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Spouses

Whatever was decided in the AFD, people don't need to be filed directly in Category:Spouses of national leaders if they're already in another category, such as Category:Canadian viceregal consorts, which is already a subcategory of Category:Spouses of national leaders. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lilias Massey does belong in the subcategory. She doesn't need to be in both the subcategory and the parent category at the same time is what I'm saying. Bearcat (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin America

Just wondering why this edit. If it was because the references say so, understand that I cannot really read them. Thanks! --DerRichter (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...

I'm not screaming at you :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire map

Hello SamEV! Nice to see around again! Regarding the issue of the map of the Spanish Empire, there has been an enourmous amount of discussion here at the enwiki about this issue, but also between me and other editors in the Commons, the Spanish, Galician, French, Italian and Catalan wikis. I do believe the whole question may be solved in accordance with the results reached in Commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png. I'll try to do what I proposed (an animated map), but it will take some time since presently I'm occupied with real life (!!) and with the article pt:Caviar at the Portuguese wiki. Don't you want to go to the Commons and say you mind? By the way I see that this is the only account you have in the whole wiki project (see accounts with your name). You might be interested in having a unified login (check my edits in all Wikimedia projects). See you soon! The Ogre (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Zoë Saldaña's name

Hi, SamEV. I appreciate your message regarding the issue. I am well aware of WP:3RR. I have never been warned about violating this policy, and was actually no where close to violating the policy, so I am not sure why you even brought it up. I have read the discussion page that you referred to. Honestly, I disagree with you. Saldaña's name is verifiable through magazine articles (e.g., Vanity Fair, Latina, People en español, etc.) and the pronunciation of her last name. You don't see many television/film credits give proper spelling when "foreign" characters are involved.

However, I will leave it as you wish. I don't want this to turn into an edit war and frankly, it's not worth my time. In the meantime, in your efforts to undo my edits, you have failed to observe the other edits that I made. Can you please change them back for me? Thanks. Ms. Sarita (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Users are required to warn those who are about to break 3RR. Since I think your edit was wrong, I obviously didn't want you to repeat it. And since I also thought you were actually editing in good faith and, in general, improving the article, I didn't want you to possibly get blocked (believe it or not). But I was wrong: you'd not reverted (partially, but partial reverts count just the same) 3 times already. In fact, it was only 2. I'm sorry about that, Ms. Sarita.

"Saldaña's name is verifiable through magazine articles (e.g., Vanity Fair, Latina, People en español, etc.) and the pronunciation of her last name."

Then please provide those sources. But even then, keep in mind that she's credited in her work as "Zoe Saldana" and that that is how she's almost exclusively referred to on her own website. So the most we can do is add mention of alternative spellings, but for consistency the article should use the spelling in the article's title.

"In the meantime, in your efforts to undo my edits, you have failed to observe the other edits that I made. Can you please change them back for me?"

Yes. Done. SamEV (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the references, you can go to Saldaña's official site and see plenty of magazine covers with her name printed clearly. And I have not checked, but you can probably find an archive of the magazine covers so that they may be implemented into the article if need be. As far as her official website not using the spelling of "Zoë" or "Saldaña" consistently, that is the same issue with the official website of singer Beyoncé. And there are many articles in which her name is simply spelled Beyonce. However, no one questions the spelling of her name. May I ask why that is? And thank you very much for restoring the edits that did not regard her name. I appreciate it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we're supposed to go with the most common spelling we find. So far, I've seen no proof that "Zoe Saldana" isn't it. It baffles me that you are, in effect, suggesting that she's allowed her name to be misspelled in her film credits for the last three years (until Vantage Point broke the streak), as seen at IMDb.[2] Anything with a diacritic is described merely as an 'alternate name' on her page there, which page is titled the same as her WP article. We seem to have no categorical source that says: 'this is the correct spelling of her name, darn it!' Thus, it comes down to numbers. A Google search easily reveals what that most common spelling is on the internet.[3] An IMDb search easily reveals how she's been credited; and I think it obvious that her recent credits should carry more weight than earlier ones. But your comparison to Beyoncé makes a good point. I'll add the alternate versions to the article. Please let me know whether or not you find that a good compromise. SamEV (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It would baffle me more so that she would allow her name to be misspelled by Vanity Fair, People en español, etc., in which she most likely personally spoke to the interviewers. But you have made some good points and like I said, I will leave it. Thank you for compromising with the argument. I appreciate it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And I hope you change your mind and decide to again contribute to the article and keep it on your watchlist. Take care. SamEV (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP 0.7

I don't know, I'm not really that involved in the process. But if there are any verisons you want chosen, I'd get them in to User:SelectionBot/0.7/A-6#Aviation before it is too late. The folks there would have more info on this. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Argentine American Page

I think you inadvertently blanked out most of the article when you edited the Argentine American page. So I reverted your edit thinking perhaps it was vandalism, but now that I took a look at your user info, I can tell I was wrong. But I thought I'd let you know. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Edgar

Edgar again? Man, I give up, go ahead and do what you think is right. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

El Sombrero Barnstar

		El Sombrero Barnstar Award
		I award you a El Sombrero Barnstar for all your contributions. LatinoMuslim 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

You're welcome. More people really should go through the history of popular articles to see who's been contributing.--LatinoMuslim 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong. I just feel lazy for not thanking more people. lol. --LatinoMuslim 01:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

I have taken the effort to communicate but you have only disregarded my messages.

As for the Hispanic and Latino Americans article, I have only reverted twice during the last few hours, no more than you have. I am well aware of the three-revert rule and will not violate it.

Considering your radical behavior lately, you are more likely to be blocked than I am. Disagreeing with me in one article does not give you the permission to undermine my contributions throughout the site. M5891 (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to let this go, but I can't let you get away with twisting the facts again. I first contacted you, asking you quite politely to discuss, as your talk page shows. But you pointedly made no effort to compromise, presumably (I can only guess, since you never explained) because you thought your manhood would itself be compromised (a common misconception around here, I'd say).

And as for this "undermining" charge, it's without merit. We happen to disagree on three of the articles that we both edit. And since I was editing there before you, you can't be seriously saying that I showed up there recently just to revert you.

And what's radical is that you discovered talk pages.

But, you have improved your attitude recently, and we may have turned a new leaf, as we seem to have resolved two of those disputes (I hope). SamEV (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Black Americans of African immigrant origin or African immigration to the United States

I have no interest in the page nor the "correct" name. My only interest was in making sure the page history was with the page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SamEV (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Who was the last comment to, me or Middayexpress? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Him, of course. I'll amend it to remove ambiguity. SamEV (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. SamEV (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be because I didn't notice it. The page is fully protected in whatever version it's currently at. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. SamEV (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dominican Republic page

hello SamEV i want to talk to you about the dominican republic page is really sucks we need to do something about it any suggestions? BigGabriel555 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Sam, just dropping by to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Thanksgiving Day". Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I wanted to ask you a simple question : it seems to me that the user Red Hat Ferrick (im sure you know him) is preventing the release of a map showing the portuguese lands during the Iberian Union period belonging to the Spanish monarchy , and i ask you Are you done discussing this subject? --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ok thank you for the info and if you could kindly tell me when would this proposed map by the Ogre be ready?:) greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

oh really? well thanks for the info , expect to see you there :) Kind Regards--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ah joder hablais español , cierto? bueno que gusto me da que encuentre alguien en la wikipedia anglo-sajona (jeje) que hable castellano :)mucho gusto de conocerlo :) saludos --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why it would be a pleasure :) Some editors in the Spanish Empire Article are advocating for the proposal of including the Portuguese Empire into the Spanish empire and they have provided many verifiable sources , the problem is that they are only prevented so by User : The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick . He is all about sophistry. He is just manipulating the truth and i believe he should let the editors who obviously have the clear upperhand in this subject to go ahead and change the errors , but he is not letting them. Also he has ownership issues , even though he denies it, he has been told this by a handful of users , even on his own userpage. Sophistry is clearly against the rules.

One question from me please :) where are you from ? Saludos !--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes its the same f*cking dispute because of Red Hat Ferrick , damn i hate sophism! lol btw what do you mean by "discussion...noticeboard"? :) Saludos!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

yes thanks for the heads up , i already explained my case and it looks like Red Hat Ferrick has been "told-off" by the admins lol :) thanks anyways , greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hola! Remember the Indochina issue on the SE article? there were two attempts to conquer Indochina by the spanish (and make it a colony), first in the late 1500's (i have explained it in the talk page) and the franco-spanish expedition (Cochinchina campaign). So can you please explain this to Red Hat Patrick or try to settle this dispute?:)

Saludos--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL go see what i did in ferrick's page :) hehe

saludos!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

white people

yes i did have a little snag a while back with that editor, but as long as it's properly sourced i do not have an issue with the content it's a race article so it invites controversial content but with all that said i do question the relevancy of it in direct relation to the article being it just trying to enforce some notion of the united states boogeyman spector of a one drop rule on a country that is not the united states and just seems like a criticism of the argentine census--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

sameev there is a new proposal on the White people article to add pictures to it being you also frequent race articles i think your imput may be useful whether or not you agree with the proposal--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood my post at the OR noticeboard

I'm not raising the issue of Portugal v Spain's colonies. I'm talking about this map [4] which EuroHistoryTeacher uploaded. In particular these pink areas. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you corrected your statement at the OR noticeboard, because what you say is not true. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ps I was also waiting for Ogre's map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Teacher may not have included all the areas that could go in that map, per reliable sources. I'll leave it to him to source the map, though. I don't expect it will be too difficult to do.

And how recently have you talked to Ogre? SamEV (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, please don't misrepresent the position here. You know as well as I do that it can be argued both ways about the Portuguese colonies - we have maps in reliable sources showing both (my view is that the lowest common denominator should prevail - a map that is the intersection of all the maps in reliable sources - the least contentious position). I rather think we are going to have to take this one to dispute resolution if Ogre doesn't show up - you and EHT aren't going to steamroller this one through just because the balance of numbers has temporarily tilted. Putting that aside for a moment, please take a close look at EHT's map and all the pink areas. I have NEVER seen such a map where that strip is shaded in Western Sahara, or those portions of the East Indies, or Cambodia/Vietnam. And remember what he has labelled as pink. "Areas of claims, explorations or trade". Did the Spanish explore parts of Canada or claim them? What about Cambodia? Who says that they explored or traded in that exact area? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go, Pat. If it can be argued both ways, per reliable sources, then both should be included, per WP:NPOV.

Now on the areas: the whole Pacific coast, and the Oregon Country were claimed by Spain. In fact, owing to Spain's strong position in the whole Pacific, in America and Asia, the Pacific Ocean was sometimes referred to as the "Spanish lake". The Louisiana region also caught a bit of Canada. EHT failed to add Spanish claims to Alaska, reached by Spanish explorers in 1774 and where there are still a place named Valdéz and one named Córdoba. Brazil's borders were disputed until the 18th century. Regarding the Spanish claims in northwest Africa, I won't go out on a limb in support of what EHT drew; it may or may not have been a Spanish claim at some point. Spain did have a presence in Southeast Asia, particularly during the period of 1580-1640. She fought a war alongside France in Vietnam in the 1850s.

Please choose your words better. "Steamroll" is inappropriate, especially in my case, since I'm barely involved in that dispute. EHT contacted me and we've been talking, and I gave my opinion at the noticeboard.

Pat, I too hoped to stay out of it until Ogre shows up with a new map. I'm not too eager to wade back into the whole mess, especially since I doubt your flexibility.

In case you didn't know: your idea of the LCD (lowest common denominator) violates WP:NOR. We have to show what sources state, period. There's room for more than one view. SamEV (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how you would both show and not show the Portuguese colonies on one map? The present situation is actually a pretty good compromise when you think about it - mention them in the caption, include the Iberian Union map below. Both points of view are recognised. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

An animated map is one way. Showing both maps in the lead is another. SamEV (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean show the current 1 year old map (or variant thereof) plus the Iberian Union one? It would look ridiculous, but if it stops all the bickering over it, I would accept that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mean exactly that. The Iberian Union caption should point out (and cite, if you want) that some sources say that Portugal and its possessions were part of the Spanish Empire, whereas other sources say it was not, in whichever order you want ot state it. SamEV (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No response. Is it because the whole idea of presenting the other POV just doesn't suit you, Pat? Even though you've just said both POVs are supported by reliable sources? SamEV (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"No response?" I am not glued to my computer awaiting any message you might post here so that I can reply in seconds - there is something called sleep which I do enjoy and engage in on occasion. I have already said above that I would accept that compromise, even though it would look ridiculous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw you edit another article - it showed up on my watchlist - sometime after I posted that message above, so I interpreted the fact that you hadn't replied as backtracking on your part. But I take it back, then. SamEV (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you also took back your incorrect statement at the OR noticeboard about the map in question. I know you are experienced enough here to understand the policies, and consequently you'll agree with me that me challenging EuroHistoryTeacher to provide references for his map should not result in a torrent of OR like this [5]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't retract my comment, b/c I agree with EHT. But I'll urge him on the sources, and will work on that myself, as proposed on the article's talk page. SamEV (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You claimed on that noticeboard that a multitude of references had been provided for the map he uploaded and that I was ignoring them. This is not the case, is it? The result of you claiming that was that the editor reviewing my posting misunderstood the situation. Either you made a mistake, in which case I would appreciate you clarifying that on the noticeboard, or you are fully aware of the misunderstanding it caused and happy for it to ride. Which is it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ps I am signing off for the night now. So don't interpret a lack of reply as meaning anything. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll consider this matter again. SamEV (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Claro que si! of course! just tell me what sources you need and i'll give them to you!:) greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of category Semitic people for deletion

Hi - Twinkle seems to have failed to notify you about this, see [6] - I'm afraid I don't see the point of having what looks like a duplicate category. dougweller (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug. And please see my reply to Cgingold below. SamEV (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Semitic people Article

Hey there, I was looking at the edit history for Semitic people, and I noticed that an anon. IP converted it from a redirect page to a stub article on Nov. 1, the same day that Category:Semitic people was added to the article. Which is really puzzling, because that category didn't even exist until you created it on Nov. 3. So I was wondering if perhaps you might have been editing for a while before you logged-in that day? I sure hope you don't feel like I'm snooping or something -- I'm just trying to tie up a loose end that was nagging at me! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Cgingold. You meant Dec 1, not Nov 1. And no, I'm not that IP user. I saw the category in the Qahtanite article, during an edit there. I followed the category link because it was red, which was due to its being orphaned. So I added a parent category (Category:Ethnic groups in Asia), which, since it was the first edit to the page, makes me the "creator". But as you can see, I wasn't the originator of the category at all. I never added it to any article. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a minute to reply, Sam. It makes sense now. :) Cgingold (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to ask, do you by chance have any opinion regarding the conversion of Semitic people from a redirect page to a stub? Cgingold (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it.

The Semitic people article is using the title in the same sense as "Semitic peoples", and the latter already redirects to Semitic#Ancient Semitic peoples. So on that basis, I'd have to conclude that Semitic people should revert to redirecting to Semitic.

But I don't think it's illegitimate to have an article about Semitic peoples: it was considered a valid classification of humans formerly. However, and ideally, the Semitic people article should expand on the "(Ancient) Semitic peoples" section of the aforementioned Semitic article, and it plainly does not, since it is but a stub. So what's the point of it?

I hope that makes sense. Sorry for the obvious verbosity, but I could find no briefer way of stating all that. SamEV (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you were excessively verbose (not to be redundant and repeat myself. :) I had pretty much the same take on things as you. As it stands, the article is very sketchy, and partly overlaps the content of Semitic. I think I'm gonna run it by WikiProject Ethnic groups and see what people there think. Cgingold (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal

So are you going to suggest your compromise then? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Portuguese colonies now... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Compromise"

I cannot believe you! After all the fuss you made about me going back on my word (when I never did, all I said was that I am not agreeing to anything explicitly until you propose it), you have now turned around and said that this compromise will last for three weeks, after which you will agree to what you originally wanted. Do you understand what a compromise is? Clearly not. So I withdraw my support for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, Pat reneged on his word again... why am I not surprised?

Actually, although I did think I was a bit hasty with that business of the three weeks, you should be thanking me, Pat, because I was just trying to hold EHT back.

The way I saw it, Ogre's overdue for an update and there's a good chance he might of his own accord drop by and update us, or that someone who has his email might apprise him of our compromise and that Ogre would thus choose to drop by. Maybe it's not an ideal scenario, but considering the circumstances... SamEV (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No se , yo queria (y quiero) incluir las colonias portuguesas en el imperio español .

Pero para que quieren poner el mapa de la "union" en el frente? pero no os parare , adelante Sam , ponganlo

saludos!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ummm....no se ahora que lo dices no estoy tan seguro , Ogre no es (o no parece ser) una persona en que puedes botarle todo encime (not reliable), aunque podemos ver primero como saldria por favor?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Pues ponlo amigo! tengo ganas de verlo ya! :):)EuroHistoryTeacher

"bullshark"

[7]

This is something i never heard of, even though i studied spanish/latin american politics and history, i suggest this article be removed because first it doesn't meet wiki criteria, second NO SOURCES at all , third i believe the closest thing to this is pan-movements but latin nationalism is something non-existent

Saludos--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just said as much on its talk page. Why don't you WP:AfD it? SamEV (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

African immigration to the United States

Of course I still object. Like WhatamIdoing, I was being sincere when I wrote what I wrote. I fully stand by all of it, and won't be changing my mind any time soon. Middayexpress (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's quite possible. Who's to say? Middayexpress (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana

I understand that her name is more commonly spelled, "Zoe Saldana." That is why when I reedited the unedit, I only fixed the actual name part to Zoë Yadira Zaldaña Nazario, or at least Zoe Yadira Zaldaña Nazario, if that's the correct spelling. But if that's wrong, then by all means, leave it the way it is. Do you or anyone else know what the spelling for her legal name actually is? Sorry for any misunderstandings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.166.80 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(maps)

hhmmn...disculpa Sam pero no me gusto el mapa , yo estoy haciendo un parecido ojala que les guste  :)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mira tengo una mejor idea , hay que poner el mapa del SE que yo cree [crear](el de ahora) incluyendo las posesiones portuguesas, y aparte el mapa que esta ahora , entiendes?

Saludos--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

mira yo prefiero algo asi : en rojo/rosado = espanol , morado = colonias portuguesas durante la "Union" Iberica

Hay q poner dos mapas ,el que yo hize en el frente y abajo este, pero espero que este lo sea :)

[[:Image:Spanish Empire total.PNG|thumb|400px|right|An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1975). Red - actual possessions; Pink - explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty. Spain and Portugal had the same rulers from 1580 to 1640 (Iberian Union). Historians are divided over whether the Portuguese colonies, shown in purple, were in fact part of the Spanish Empire during that time.]] Bueno ustedes ya pueden corregir las palabras , etc. :)

--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Creo que en ves de "There is no scholarly consensus on whether they formed part of the Spanish Empire" , deberiamos poner algo como : Historians are divided whether the PE belonged to the SE, o algo asi pero que la mayoria de la gente que lee wiki pueda entender , esas palabras confundiran a mucha gente :)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Hmmnn..this is harder than i thought lol :) , tenemos que poner enfasis en que los reyes de portugal por 60 años fueron españoles para que no crean en vice-versa , como por ejemplo tal vez ellos crean quel SE fue PARTE del PE ! lol

Hay que poner algo simple como : " An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1975). Red - actual possessions; Pink - explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty. Purple - Portuguese colonies during the period of the Iberian Union (1581-1640). The empires remained legally separate, but historians are divided over whether the Spanish Empire included the Portuguese Empire de facto. "

Y solo mostramos un mapa : [[:Image:Spanish Empire total.PNG|thumb|400px|right|An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1975). Red - actual possessions; Pink - explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty. Purple - Portuguese colonies during the period of the Iberian Union (1581-1640). The empires remained legally separate, but historians are divided over whether the Spanish Empire included the Portuguese Empire de facto.]]

Bueno en verdad no se que estamos discutiendo Sam , que hay de discutir aqui? otro que las palabras adentro de la caja del mapa .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Por eso lo cambie por palabras mas faciles de comprender , por ejemplo cuando tu escribiste "...scholarly consensus..." , ademas de que es dificil de entender , hubo una persona (pat) que ahora lo va a reportar por eso , que jodido de tipo que es el , no?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Si ok disculpa yo no lo sabia , pense que estabamos de acuerdo mutamente--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tal vez si o no , men no se los que escriben en wiki se pasan el dia con disusiones byzantinas (es decir discusiones que no tienen buena conclusion) , yo quisiera un solo mapa mostrando el SE anacronico con las tierras de portugal que fueron de la dinastia filipina en portugal por 60 años , pero ferrick no quiere, que joda que el pare todo el progreso --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Pues entonces quita el primero. Hay consenso para ello: consenso basta; no se requiere unanimidad. La posición de Pat ya no tiende sentido. SamEV (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

De acuerdo , no se que el quiere, todavia tendra las espinas de 1741 para que el odie tanto a los españoles y sus imperios lol--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sabes, cuando escribí eso tú ya lo habias quitado.

Bueno... El balón está en la cancha de Pat. El que decida ahora como jugarlo. SamEV (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No no yo lo quite cuando me lo dijiste! :) Santa Maria madre de Dios....mira de lo que nos acusa Ferrick, ahhh...que dolor de cabeza que me da. Si pero el no se da cuenta de que se esta haciendo autogoles lol--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mira modifique el mapa del SE , partes como Calcutta o las islas asiaticas de las indias que eran portuguesas fueron coloreadas y se pueden ver mejor ahora y tambien parte de sudafrica que fue (durante la union iberica) tierra portuguesas. saludos--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gracias :) , pero no termine por ser modesto .

Mira este mapa del Ministro de Educacion Español este mapa es 100% correcto no se puede debatir ya que la fuente es el ministerio de España: [8]

Quisieras que ponga todo en verde que fue portugues en el mapa de SE? Yo si y otritas partes que se muestran en naranja que fue parte del SE como en Georgia , etc.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No se si me entendiste , ve el mapa que te enseñe , ahi estan en verde lo de portugal y en naranja lo de españa , yo te pregunte si quisieras que yo añada las tierras verdes de portugal en asia/india/islas indias en el mapa del SE que estoy modificando (claro en morado)?

Si? yo pense que ya habia colorado la renania (Rhineland), pero si lo hare--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok ya puse las sources y ahora voy a poner el mapa con la Renania y otras partes portuguesas en asia :)

Lo de los oceanos va a ser muy complicado de crear pero lo hare . Saludos--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Si lo de Canada ya esta hecho :), tambien pinte unas islas pequeñas y las islas de las indias (en asia) como muestra la fuente del ministro de educacion español .

No entiendo que es tan complicado sobre el mapa de que habla Trasamundo...

en rojo y rosado lo del españa , en morado las posesiones portuguesas que fueron "españolas" por 60 años , no se hagan la vida tan complicada por algo tan pequeño en significado , saludos a todos!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK pero en rosado no? aunque sea voy a poner en rojo un poquito al norte de florida , y de ahi en rosado, me puedes dar mas mapas para trabajar con (work with)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin Board

Just letting you know in the interests of fairness, here is my post at WP:ANI: [9] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The mess (Spanish Empire)

¡Hola!, estoy intentando seguir la discusión, pero cada vez entiendo menos.

Parece que había un compromiso, o ya no, no lo sé, en el que se planteaba durante un periodo de tiempo, poner un mapa anacrónico imcompleto del imperio español, y poner otro más durante la unión con Portugal, hasta que se presentase un mapa animado. Esta opción no me parece mal si realmente se pretende poner un mapa animado, pero este mapa animado no se tiene por qué ser realizado por The Ogre, cualquiera puede poner los mapas en commons, y una vez que estén corregidos, hacer el gif animado.

En relación con esto, ¿cuál es el objetivo del mapa File:Spanish Empire total.PNG? ¿pretende ser anacrónico de todo el periodo, o sólo pretende ser el mapa concreto durante la unión con Portugal? Si pretende ser anacrónico, yo estoy en contra porque esos mapas son un lío al mezclar épocas, y hay que distinguir muy bien con colores y leyendas; pero si pretende ser un mapa de 1580-1640 entonces, las fronteras están mal, en ese caso yo mismo hice un mapa File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png para el artículo es:Portugal bajo la Casa de Austria que no muestra la oposición España vs Portugal, sino que muestra el imperio español como un todo según el criterio jurídico del sistema polisinodial de Consejos.

Por último, todavía tengo que leer detenidamente unas pocas fuentes sobre el sistema polisinodial de la administración de la monarquía española, para ponerlas en la página de discusión de Spanish Empire. Saludos Trasamundo (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Si echas un vistazo a French colonial empire, vemos que un mapa gif animado, no es incompatible con uno mapa anacrónico. Y creo que cualquier archivo gif animado se visualiza en cualquier navegador. Ahora bien, ¿por qué no me gustan los mapas anacrónicos? pues sencillamente para mí, el mapa, sin necesidad de leer ninguna leyenda debe aclarar, puesto que la leyenda simplemente es para conceptualizar algo que es evidente, como ejemplo, seguimos mirando que en French colonial empire hay dos mapas anacrónicos, ¿cuál es el más claro, File:Empirecolonialfrançais.png o File:France colonial Empire10.png, en File:Empirecolonialfrançais.png, Siria aparece con el mismo color que Luisiana, mientras que en File:France colonial Empire10.png, aparecen con distinto color, cuando alguien mira un mapa u otro, el vistazo inicial no es del mismo tipo, puesto que File:France colonial Empire10.png ofrece mucha más información, antes de leer leyenda alguna que acompañe al mapa. Con todo esto dicho, voy a proponer distintas alternativas:

• El uso de un mapa anacrónico como en los demás imperios coloniales, no debiera mostrar la mayor extensión en un momento dado, eso tiene más de ideológico que neutral, por tanto debería mostrar el tiempo histórico. En mi opinión, en el caso de España, la forma más clara de indicar al lector los cambios territoriales más importantes en casi cinco siglos, es matizando colores en la medida que los territorios se perdían, es decir, los territorios europeos perdidos hasta los tratados de Utrecht-Baden (1714) a un color, los territorios americanos perdidos hasta la batalla de Ayacucho (1824), a otro tipo de color, los territorios perdidos hasta la paz de París (1898) con los territorios vendidos a Alemania en 1899 con otro tipo de color, los territorios resultantes del reparto de África a otro color bastante distinto, y los territorios del imperio portugués temporalmente unidos con otro color distinto. Respecto a las posesiones portuguesas pienso que el color púrpura llama escandalosamente la atención, más que los demás territorios americanos, para mí, un color verde claro no destacaría tanto para unos territorios que no fueron parte fundamental ni identificativa del imperio español.

• El uso de un mapa anacrónico no excluye el gif animado, y en este mapa animado los territorios tendrían el mismo color puesto que no hay mezcla de época.

• En el gif animado, uno no se puede detener tranquilamente a ver el mapa en un momento dado. Para pasar mapas tranquilamente existe en la wiki francesa una plantilla (template) llamada Modèle:Images y en la alemana también de:Vorlage:Scroll Gallery, parece que ha sido adaptada en Template:Scroll gallery, pero no puede funcionar hasta que se le añada el código (javascript:toggleImage) en MediaWiki:Common.js, tal y como está en fr:MediaWiki:Common.js, pero para eso hace falta un administrador. También hace falta que el navegador acepte Java, con lo en su defecto, se mostratría una galería de todos los mapas a la vez.

De todo esto dicho, vuelvo a repetir que el uso el mapa anacrónico como identificativo debiera ser tomado como se hace en el resto de artículos de imperios coloniales.

Por último, añadir, que la elaboración y detalle de un mapa, ¿no tendría que ser discutida en la página de commons del mapa a editar, y no repartir dichos planteamientos por las páginas de usuario?. Trasamundo (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Hola, gracias por tu aportación al articulo sobre Puerto Rico. En la discusión escribí que aunque firmemente creo que la Corte Suprema es clara con el asunto de la incorporación, estoy de acuerdo con tu compromiso. Solo espero que Portorricensis entienda un poco sobre consensus. --Jmundo (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Georgia/Gif

el mapa numero 11 que me enseñaste es exacto al que yo tengo en un libro mio. Quiero mostrarte la pagina en el libro para que veas el mapa pero no se como! ahh que joda , saludos--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Como asi escanearla? creo que voy a tomar una foto y te la enseño mañana, es un buen mapa , enseña isla Vancouver y partes de Columbia Britanica . Yo escribi el titulo y codigo del libro en la talk page del SE--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Joder! la foto salio perfecta! es una obra de dios! LOL

File:Land claims about 1700.jpg

400x

--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ok jaja no mas jod-, pero esa palabra me gustaba :)

Bueno eso de las carolinas yo sabia que los españoles tenian misiones ahi hmnnnn....ok voy a poner una tirita de la costa en rosado ok?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Si lo lei pero creo que un mapa anacronico esta bien , no se que es tan dificil.El gif (ya que no se puede parar para verlo) da un dolor de cabeza , yo odio a esos mapas solo me distrae.Si el del color de las posesiones portuguesas lo cambiare.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Que piensas del nuevo mapa (rojo/verde)?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Estaba pensando en anaranjado, orange it is!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ay caray mira este sitio de web, que chiste! lol : [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Hispanic and Latino Americans

Yes, I know I was rude with that user, but this is an article about Americans, and just like you said, the US doesn't view Filipinos as Hispanic, even if they have Spanish ancestry. I will try to keep my edit summary more civil, but stubborn people piss me off so easily.

Well then, good luck on gathering sources. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hispanic Latinos in the United States"...no brazilians?

[11]

mira ese titulo esta hasta las huevas lol. "Hispanics in the United States" should be the title because the current title mentions "Latinos" and last time i checked Brazilians , Haitians and the rest of the people who speak latin languages are LATINOS NOT JUST THE HISPANIC SPANISH-SPEAKING people of the Americas. Latin America, Latin Europe, Latin Asia, Latin Africa--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yo entiendo eso pero si en el articulo van a hablar de latinos y hispanos , por que no incluyen tambien a los brazileros que ellos son latinos americanos , o a los de Haiti por que ellos tambien son latinos americanos.

Eso del mapa...osea que las colonias portuguesas y lo que españa tenia influencia, reclamados , etc que los dos vayan en naranja?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ok the americancentric view :)

Y lo del mapa ? --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No of course thats a joke , if we are talking from a american pov and i say americancentric view its a minor joke :)

Look i fixed the Adrar (region) in the map too and orange for spanish, pink for portuguese--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL make up your mind Sam! orange or green or yellow or pink , whats next rainbow? LOL ok i'll do it and lol i knew i'll get you with the practical jokes haha, i'll be careful not to step on your traps! :) i will log off in 15 min but i'll put the map you want before i do so --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok i switched back to pink the spanish influenced, trade... and since yellow didnt work i put green (which works perfectly btw) as portuguese.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ok its yellow now but thats my last map for now , i got to go Sam , hope you guys like it --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Ha Ha

you got me with your joke LOL ,but i was trying to add Jeff Garcia but i had a hard time trying to format his pic to fit the info box, it looked stupid so i did not add it--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

okay samev if you could add jeff, because i can't format his pic properly or i would of added it like the way i did the rest thanks--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

happy xmas

feliz navidad/año nuevo . Ok rojizo--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

feliz navidad para ambos :-) Cosialscastells (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Igualmente Sam gracias =]

Mira tengo una idea, por que no pintamos todo el mapa (excepto territorios reclamados) en rojo? las tierras portuguesas fueron parte del imperio por 60 años, pero solo por que Portugal no es parte de españa hoy en dia no entiendo por que no pintarlas de un solo color. Que piensas?? also to avoid confusion--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire

Despite what you may think, we are both engaged in an edit war at the moment. Just because a version stood for a week and you revert back to it does not mean you are not edit warring: it takes two to edit war. So, I have removed the sentence completely from the article. Let's discuss on the talk page before adding anything back, OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the one reverting a version that has the support of all the other active editors!

Anyway... SamEV (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, all the others except for Ogre, Camara, XPTO... :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ps I wonder what happened to Ogre - hope he's ok!

And tell me how many of them have edited the article this last week? SamEV (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helps!

Hi Sam! I appreciate your works at Wikipedia. If you don't mind, please added all article of Latin/Hispanic communities in the US (suc as Mexican American, Hispanic and Latino Americans, etc) to your watchlist due to some bad faith of this user. Once again, thanks for all your good jobs and best wishes to you in the New Year 2009. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wording on S.E.

Just to let you know, I'm not reverting your change on the S.E. page, but that does not mean that I accept it, I just don't want to provoke an edit war. Bueno... hasta manana. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

voice of reason

I have to say, reading through the Spanish Empire talk page, you appear to be the voice of reason. Egads, what a lot of talk there! Nice work in staying rational in the midst! Pfly (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The map of Spanish Empire

¡¡Feliz año nuevo!!.

Te mando esta misiva a tenor de las últimas y sorprendentes comentarios en Spanish Empire, y antes que pueda aparecer una nueva discusión, quisiera hacerte llegar mi idea para comentar el mapa anacrónico, por si tú la puedes trasladar al inglés:

Amarillo- Territorios portugueses/Imperio portugués durante el periodo de 1580-1640/durante el periodo de la unión ibérica (1580-1640). El imperio portugués mantuvo su propia administración y jurisdición, pero algunos historiadores aseguran que el Imperio Portugués se integró en la monarquía española, mientras otros distinguen claramente el imperio Portugués del imperio español.

Después sería poner en la introducción del artículo esto mismo pero un poco más especificado, por ejemplo indicando las distintas denominaciones que los historiadores dan al periodo de 1580-1640, las características políticas generales del gobierno de la monarquía hispánica...

Yo desde luego, no soy el más capacitado para escribir correctamente en inglés.

Y lo dicho, feliz año. Trasamundo (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(untitled) (4)

ok si tal vez =] . bueno feliz (tarde) año nuevo! lol Pase por la spanish empire talk page y parece que una guerra anglo-española (con los portugueses en el equipo de los sajones) ha arrasado con todo! jeje . Saludos

Seguro Sam ?? ok lol pero hay alguien (y tu sabes quien es) que es un "jihadista" en wikipedia lol --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Iberian Empire

Sam, here we go again, this time at Iberian Union. I would appreciate your help in keeping EHT in check. I know he likes his own maps, but that one he has created of the Iberian Union really is ridiculous. Quite clearly he he's not familiar with Portuguese colonial history as he is using verbatim a map from a Spanish government website which runs contrary to all the books I have on the Portuguese Empire, including C.R. Boxer's, renowned historian of Portuguese colonial history. Trasamundo's map is very good. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You see Ferrick is not that I LIKE MY OWN MAPS BETTER, i just think that they are more accurate (as backed by source), that's all. For example on trasamundo maps castillian owned america is showed in red, while castille in europe is show in green, i mean wth? or in africa PE lands are shown as dots, so why is the same not in america or asia? Also the italian states (at least most namely Naples, sicily and Sardinia) belonged to Aragon , yet they are in a different color from aragon, the map is too confusing .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ok De acuerdo Sam, disculpa :) .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

pero aunque sea no podemos poner "certain areas not settled" en vez de "certain unnoccupied areas"? if its not really occupied it should kind of go to claimed , i dont know it doesnt matter but i guess it would be nicer :) si si estube ausente y cuando vine Ferrick me dijo que me vaya, ay ay ay... este muchacho ! lol--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ok si si :)

RE: Jewish Argentine

It's done. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fake new message banner

FYI - that fake new message banner is frowned upon by the community [12] and was removed from EHT's page. I suggest you do the same. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

damn ! you got me (or i got myself) with the practical joke thing! lol

Pat F. don't blame SamEv, i was the one who put the practical joke banner up there.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Message about Edits

SamEV, these sources are fine, The studies aren't done by amatuers. This should be included - I've even toned it down to say that some Argentines have minimal Amerindian ancestry. Either way it should be noted that many White latin Americans have Amerindian ancestry - Argentines are no different!. This isn't to say they are the only ones!. It also isn't a mission to take away their European heritage either. Please read about this stuff, you are a good editor! Read http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/03/genetics_the_mythbuster_the_ca.php BTW, that Message Alert (Practical Joke) got me =] Cali567 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SamEV, this isn't about stupid One-drop rule, this is about letting people who are doing research on Argentines know about their heritage. It is stated that many White Americans have small amounts of Amerindain and African blood - this isn't any different. It's simple actually. Latin America is a place of two main great culutres: Amerindian and European. This isn't about anyhthing other than giving knowledge. People will find out about White Americans having Amerindian ancestry anyway. Cali567 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for at least seeing the connection between the material. I'm not sure I understand why it's not relative in that section of the article...? If 'many' Whites have Amerindian ancestry, why can't I add that in the Amerindian or Mestizo sections in Latin America, where should it go? I'm thinking since people will read those two sections, they might as well have something pointing to it... instead of having the information in an entirely different place altogether - researchers might miss it, and what good is that? Please let me know where and how it should be edited, because frankly I'm a bit lost. Thank You for your edits. Cali567 (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Untitled (5)

Hola Sam (eres argentino de paso? :P )que crees de los mapas que enseñe en SE talk page [13] (son dudosos)? saludos !--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. pero ya creo que deberia (Pat F) agarrar una idea de que España tenia algo en el norte de Borneo, miralo hasta en wikipedia en español (yo se que esto es contra las reglas pero ya hay muchos mapas)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: White Mexican Girls

According to your conversations, maybe you'd like to head over to Latin America and take out the other 5 photos that are a part of the same situation as the White Mexican girls... How do we know the people in these photos are indeed what the sources claim? I'd like to know just as much as you, what shall we do? Cali567 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Take out any I want? You have no shame. All of those photos were put in as Good Faith edits - Why should one person barking about them (Possibly because they are from Mexico and not their favorite Latin American coutnry)make Wikipedians change them? This is getting to be too much. Why should we dispose of one and not the other/ Do tell? Cali567 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the photo of Mexican girls unsourced and the photo of Uruguayans sourced? They both say self-made. Plus the Mexican girls has a higher resolution and the Uruguayans does not, usually if you work with your own camera the resoultion is higher as opposed to copying and pasting from a web-site - that is how the Uruguayan photo looks. Please tell me why - other than the fact that you don't care for the picture - it can't be on the page? Cali567 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Cali567 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Asian H/L Ams

I look fine, good thing you remove the Hollywood BS. When it comes to keeping it, personally both articles have no notability, but I don't know, there could be someone who can find factual information with sources about these groups. Very little is known about them, so that is why I say they are not notable. What do you think? Thanks for the help, and keep up the good work. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with a merging the 4 articles since both White H&LA and Black H&LA are well sourced, and they have notability. In regards to a new racial demographics page, maybe you should do separate section in Hispanic and Latino Americans about race demographics. The current demographic section is mainly about National origin (Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Guatemala, ect.), race is mention at all. Maybe do a sub-section on race, then you can merge Asian and American Indian/Alaskan H&LA to those section. What do you think? Lehoiberri (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Duda sobre Brasil español

Hola, en primer lugar gracias por revertir un vandalismo en mi página de usuario. Y ahora vamos al asunto: Resulta que ante mi total escepticismo acerca de colorear como español toda la Amazonia, EuroHistoryTeacher me ha respondido:

• As for Brazil, we should show the borders in the proposed map in red as Spanish because those borders were internationally recognized (at least by Portugal, the only power in South America along with Spain) even though they were not settled (although some Christians ventured into the amazons to Christianize indigenous people).

• The borders recognized in the Amazon Basin by both Spain and Portugal gave Spain about half of Brazil whose borders were not based on the torsedilla claims [14].

.

Como no he encontrado que esa frontera haya sido internationally recognized en los tratados de 13 de febrero de 1668, 7 de mayo de 1681, 18 de junio de 1701, 13 de enero de 1750, 12 de febrero de 1761, 10 de febrero de 1763, 1 de octubre de 1777, o el de 24 de marzo de 1778; y como tampoco tengo acceso a este libro, ¿me podrías indicar qué aparece exactamente en este libro que se pueda deducir que el Amazon Basin were internationally recognized as Spanish at least by Portugal?. Y esto me viene porque en un opúsculo de 1749 llamado Disertación Histórica y Geográfica sobre el Meridiano de Demarcación entre los dominios de España y Portugal escrito por Jorge Juan y Santacilia y Antonio de Ulloa aparece el siguiente texto:

• ...por la parte del oriente el meridiano, ó línea de demarcacion que divide los países de la corona de Castilla de los de Portugal; pero quedaron estos dudosos ó confusos allí por no haberse expresado los que lo son en realidad, nacido esto de no haberse hasta el presente determinado con formalidad por qué parte corta la tierra este meridiano.

• Tan constante ha sido esta duda en la serie de los tiempos que nunca ha logrado declararse con la precision y exactitud que se requería, y así aunque varios autores geógrafos é historiadores hayan hablado de ella, no resolviéndola ninguno perfectamente, es forzoso se mantenga suspenso el juicio, ceñido solo á la noticia de haber un meridiano así llamado de demarcacion, y á las de sus fundamentos y controversias, pero sin llegar á conocer los parajes en que debe entenderse situado; punto principal que se necesita investigar para que con su inteligencia pueda saberse con firmeza qué países son los que legítimamente corresponden á los de Portugal.

Ahora bien, si la cuestión, no deriva del tratado de Tordesillas, y en 1749 tampoco estaba claro, ¿de dónde sale que los Portugueses reconocieran una frontera que incluyera como española toda la Amazonia? A ver si no es un reconocimiento de fronteras, sino que es de esferas de influencia, por eso te pido que es lo que pone exactamente. También la convención de Cintra de 18 de septiembre de 1509 estableció la división de áreas de influencia sobre Marruecos entre Castilla y Portugal, y no por eso se ponen como españolas toda la costa mediterránea a partir de Ceuta, sino las posesiones realmente conquistadas de una manera efectiva por Castilla. Trasamundo (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Matias Ramon Mella Province

Hi, the Matías Ramón Mella Province have came back! What can we do? Seems that the same guy still reverting the maps and contents, like Provinces of the Dominican Republic and Santo Domingo Province. Please can you help?Oscar987 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

White latin American

I'm just an anyomous small time editor, i see you are a very established editor i think that tom Character is geting a little out of line on that talk thread about shakira and i dont think that thread is trying to help improve the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.237.33 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging him...

Sam, you just made my point about encouraging him, writing on his talk page after he's threatened to revert, and having just come off two blocks for reverting, "They should be undone". It would be more mature of you, not to mention constructive to the project, to list your objections to my edits on the talk page, and to encourage EHT to do so too, instead of hitting the "revert" button solely because it was done unilaterally. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I already let you know in no uncertain terms my opposition to your edit. So yes, I agree with him that your edit should be undone, reverted, whatever you want to call it. SamEV (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you'd tried discussion, then maybe your edit wouldn't be reverted. What do you think about that? SamEV (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine for a moment that none of our squabbles had ever happened, and one day someone made the same edits that I just did to the map. What would your objections to the edits be then? Are you objecting to the edits because of the manner in which they made, the editor who made them, or do you actually have some proper reasons for objecting to them relating to verifiability, or something else that affects the reader (the person this is all intended for), instead of the silly arguments that we have been having? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ps I did make the edits plain for all to see on the talk page, did I not?

Three out of four: the color green is awful, Sabah should be solidly shaded, not it's mere outline, and the Japanese "dot" should have been discussed. Now please, leave my talk page alone and reply on the article's talk. I'll remove your message if you don't kindly comply. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC) (I meant that green color, on that map: not green generally!! :) SamEV (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

Can't you tell Pat Ferrick something? He's blaming all this on me as if I was the only one disagreeing with him and he thinks that's wrong, what he does not see is that his maps are not accepted neither in the Spanish Empire nor Portuguese Empire pages and all theses issues he is able to exploit at the expense of me.

Ok i'll read it in Trasamundo page --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So, SamEV, given that EHT unilaterally changed the map, there was no discussion of his latest changes, and you have now heard my objections to them, I presume you will be reverting it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will urge him to restore the map as it was before you made your unconsulted changes. You're in no position to complain about unilateral changes, do you realize?

We'd pledged to consult on further changes. I'm sticking to that. You violated that pledge. Once again, you've seized an opportunity to show that you cannot be trusted, Pat. SamEV (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not complaining about unilateral changes. I am complaining about others making unilateral changes who have just finished complaining about unilateral changes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think "I" want it green? that map looks like the flag of Portugal! lol I would want it a purple or a brownish yellow like in the map I'm proposing--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See here [15]--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Do you know how to archive ? because I think my user page is getting ridiculously long :)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sam no quisiera molestarte pero por favor si lo puedes hacer, por favor hazlo ya que yo me voy a ir en 3 minutos. Disculpa por la incovenencia, saludos! --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

May I ask what happened to the consensus when you posted this? [16] As I recall you spent the evening removing all my posts on your talk page requesting that we discuss the matter on the talk page before making any rash decisions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG! I'm beginning to think that EHT is right about you.

Pat, take a look at look at this talk page's edit history for that day: [17] Give me the links to every post of yours that I removed. I recall two. And I removed them with good reason, as you had become abusive, in my opinion.

I stand by every word I said in that link you gave. Your behavior forfeited you the right to be taken seriously any more. And my words merely expressed the general opinion. Who spoke up for you? Who?!

Not only that: who spoke in your favor when EHT began to taunt you? Was it me, or wasn't it, Pat?

Pat, leave me alone, at least for now. Stick to the article talk page.

Speaking of which, if you find working on the map too stressful, then take a break. You're not obligated to do anything you can't.

Please take a good look at yourself. I'm starting to think you're losing it, man. SamEV (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I count three. Please read this back to yourself. [18]. Some things you removed and claimed were incivil: "Sam my friend! This wasn't the reaction I intended to generate. You always seem to misunderstand my posts." and "OK. I'm going to stop posting here as it's clearly winding you up even more, even though that is the complete opposite of my intention! Please, though, check out the WP:TEA page. In the past when I've been wound up, others have pointed me to it, and a quick read of it soon calms me down. :-)" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm unwatching this page now, and won't post here again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed at what I've let you get away with this time!

"By the way, I'm unwatching this page now, and won't post here again."

Thank you! See you at the article's Talk! (Pardon all the exclamation points.) SamEV (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please restrain your buddy

Sam, you are the only person EHT listens to. I appeal to your good faith here: his uploading of his new map [19] is totally out of order. Please ask him to revert it. I am not going to get into an edit war with him. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Back so soon?

And um, do you see what you started, mate?

Btw, to which map version do you want to return? Don't tell me it's that last one you created... SamEV (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Back indeed - circumstances have changed! I'm perfectly happy to return to an earlier version if you prefer. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite his change to the Oregon Country? SamEV (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not say that Pat Ferrick! Albrecht said to change the oregon country and I did! I do listen to whoever is more reasonable and that does not look like you. I don't understand what your problem is with the map now, you even said is the same just more detailed so what's the problem of me changing it ?!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I was being pressured. Anyways can you see this article african american? Obama is shown as an african american, by that logic then he is also white.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(untitled) (6) (archiving)

Muchas gracias Sam por "archivearlo" (? lol )! :) --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Creo que todavía se dice "archivarlo". :)

Dejé el mensaje de bienvenida. Tú decides si lo retienes o nó. SamEV (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

I just want to thank you and congratulate you on a job well done here in Wikipedia. It makes editing so much easier having a well established and non-biased contributor. I look forward working with you in the various topics we have in common. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not completely back

Escribiré en Español (I am very sorry) para expresar mejor las ideas. Ciertamente he estado algo alejado, aunque siempre reviso algunos artículos. En el artículo Dominican Republic no he estado trabajando; me cansé con User:BigGabriel555. Pero me han pedido ayuda para corregir las contribuciones de User:MDRU08 quien ha estado inventando provincias y cambiando los nombres de ciudades por nombres inventandos. Y es peor que BigGabriel555 ya que trabaja en numerosos artículos. Ha agregado banderas y escudos en todas partes, y tengo serias dudas sobre la veracidad de esas banderas; incluso ha creado banderas para las falsas provincias. Sus actividades me preocupan mucho porque dentro de poco veremos muchos de sus errores en otras Wikipedias porque aparentan ser verdaderos. De todas maneras, si tengo tiempo, ayudaré un poco en lo que pueda. --Pepemar2 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Para que veas los problemas con User:MDRU08, visita el artículo Mejía de Navarrete; ese es un municipio inventado. Navarrete es el nombre antiguo, y el más usado, del municipio Villa Bisonó. Pero "crea" ese municipio con bandera y todo. Pero más triste, y que da deseos de llorar y reir, es el artículo Colón Insular Region, una antigua "provincia" creado por dicho usuario, con bandera, escudo, mapa. Eso es muy peligroso porque, para quien no sea del país, el artículo está tan desarrollado, aún siendo un esbozo, que parece real. Por la presencia de esas banderas y escudos es que creo que las banderas provinciales no son reales sino frutos de la mente de esa persona. Si revisas el artículo List of Dominican flags también verás, si no las he borrado, banderas regionales y de islas; las regiones que pone son geográficas o administrativas pero no políticas por lo que no pueden tener banderas. Te pido a ver si puedes cambiar Santa Bahia de Pedernales (nombre inventado) a Pedernales, Dominican Republic ya que no he podido hacer el cambio. Gracias. --Pepemar2 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gracias por el cambio a Pedernales (city)) aunque luego que habrá ponerlo en Pedernales, Dominican Republic ya que hay otras ciudades llamadas Pedernales (en Ecuador, Argentina, Venezuela, por ejemplo) pero por lo menos desapareció el falso nombre. Tengo que corregir una información sobre una capilla que, falsamente, le dió el nombre de Bahía Santa; eso es falso, y debo decir que durante años estuve viajando a la región por lo menos una vez al mes en un proyecto de desarrollo comunitario. Y sobre la región insular de Colón, te aseguro que no existió pero me parece buena idea ponerle una nota (aunque ese usuario no acostumbra responder). Y Villa Bisonó es el mismo Navarrete; siempre se dice Villa Bisonó (Navarrete); su fusión no sé si funcionará ya que habría que revisar los datos poblacionales, que fueron modificados arbitrariamente. Gracias de nuevo. --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghanaians in the United Kingdom

Hi, just to let you know I have left a comment on the tlak page of Ghanaians in the United Kingdom (Talk:Ghanaians in the United Kingdom), it would be great if you could get involved, and I would appreciate your help. Thanks User:Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

MRDU08

Colon era una provincia que duro varios anos pero nunca lo acceptaron como es. Era una provincia sin duda pero nadie lo quiso decir que fue. La Provincia de Colon se hiso parte la Provincia La Altagracia y Barahona. Se conose ahora la Region Insular de Colon por la razon que colon visito la isla mas importante de ellas que fue Isla Saona. Se combirtieron toditas una region como El Cibao y Ozama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRDU08 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 January 2009

Si es así, ¿por qué Vicente Tolentino Rojas en su "Historia de la División Territorial Dominicana, 1494-1943" ni Werner D. Féliz en su "División Político-Territorial Dominicana 1944-2004" lo mencionan? Pero tampoco ningún geógrafo dominicano: Santiago de la Fuente, Núñez Molina, Cucurullo, Incháustegui, entre otros, mencionan dicha región. Además, por la fecha que dices que existió, ya yo estaba en la escuela y nunca la oí mencionar ni en informes de esa época como los estudios geográficos de la costa dominicana por Carlos González, hechos en 1958-59. No aparece en ningún mapa hecho desde 1951 hasta la fecha (y los he revisado). La Oficina Nacional de Planificación (ONAPLAN), que es el organismo que ha creado las divisiones administrativas superiores a provincia, no tiene dicha región en ninguna de sus publicaciones pero tampoco aparece en las publicaciones de la Oficina Nacional de Estadística (ONE). A propósito, no son comparables las regiones Cibao y Ozama; el Cibao es una región geográfica-histórica que ya Colón menciona y, administrativamente, está dividida en varias regiones administrativas; la región Ozama es una región administrativa, no geográfica ni histórica, creada por ONAPLAN en la década de 1980. Y, finalmente, Colón descubrió y nombró a todas esas islas: Beata (que nombró Madama Beata), Catalina (Sancta Catalina) y Saona (aparentemente la nombró Savona). Para terminar, si me puede indicar en qué publicación aparece la Región Insular de Colón, lo agradecería mucho. --Pepemar2 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

White Latin Americans

Hey, SamEV, looks like you are doing some great work. I think perhaps I am a bit queasy about dealing in a clear-cut way with a fuzzy issue such as race, but no doubt it is interesting and important work. I think I'll just leave the WLA article to others. BTW, I clicked on your practical joke above a couple of times before I realised what was going on ... maybe I am just not the sharpest bulb in the barrel. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Latin Europe#Original research concern

Your thoughts would be welcomed there - you're not the only one who'd been having problems with User:Olahus. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin America

Thanks for the heads up, I'll add the original sources used by those articles... Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dominican flags

He visto que le diste un "warning" a User:MRDU08. Para que veas los problemas, visita la discusión en List of Dominican flags; estoy casi convencido que todas esas banderas se deben a la imaginación de dicho usuario. Esas banderas "falsas" crean un gran problema: muchas personas creerían que son verdaderas, cuando no lo son, y el error podría propagarse más rápidamente de lo que uno se imagina. No sé si empezar a solicitar el borrado de dichas banderas pero no tengo base segura para decir que son inventadas. Tendré que dedicar una semana a investigar en diferentes lugares si son correctas o no. --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am tired and I am retiring

Lo siento pero no puedo competir con User:MDRU08; cada día hace una cantidad enorme de ediciones, modificando páginas en todo Wikipedia. Está llenando todo lo relacionado con la República Dominicana con informaciones falsas (real y gravemente falsas) frutos de su imaginación. La única manera es bloquearlo completamente y ver si se puede arreglar algunos de los daños que ha hecho. Pero es demasiado trabajo para mí; lo primero que hago al entrar en Wikipedia es ver las nuevas "contribuciones" de dicho usuario. Por suerte, en Wikipedia en Español no ha podido (o querido) hacer el mismo daño; no ha podido introducir sus queridas banderas y escudos. Si puedes hacer algo, me avisas y gracias por tu colaboración. --Pepemar2 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Intentaré seguir pero toda esta actividad de reparar daños consume mucho tiempo, y me apena por tí. Ya ví que recuperaste Pedernales; recuperé Template:Provincial capitals of the Dominican Republic y algo más. Pero hay tanto que hacer! Volvió a cambiar Nagua a Trinidad Sánchez Nagua y no he podido rehacer el daño porque parece que no hace los cambios de manera correcta; el nombre correcto es Nagua; Trinidad Sánchez Nagua es un nombre inventado no sé con qué fin. Ahora también hay una List of Dominican province nicknames, con apodos inventados por él (aunque no le veo sentido a esa lista). Y las banderas las cambia continuamente, sin explicaciones; yo borraría todas las banderas hasta que se resuelva el asunto. En Wikipedia en Español no hay banderas (aunque él ha intentado ponerlas allí!). De todas maneras, ayudaré un poco pero no con mucho deseo, y no le dediques mucho tiempo porque no veo una pronta solución. --Pepemar2 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He escrito lo siguiente en la discusión de List of Dominican flags: Here are some points that must be answered about the validity of the provincial flags, taking in account the comments by 88.15.51.13 on 5 February 2009.

1. Some flags have changed a lot from the first version to the last one. For example, Azua, Barahona, La Romana, La Vega, Monseñor Nouel, Monte Plata, Samaná, San José de Ocoa (only colors in this case), San Juan de la Maguana and Valverde.
2. After the comment of 88.15.51.13, the Discussion page was blanketed and some flags were radically changed: Azua, La Romana, San Juan de la Maguana.
3. In some cases, (Samaná, San Juan de la Maguana) two versions were offered the same day, 9 February 2009
4. There are only two references: one for Azua, with a link to a website of the Azua city not the province, and another for Sánchez Ramírez. In this last case, I suspect that in this website they copy a flag found in Wikipedia; if it is so, then it is not a valid reference. And the external is for the national flag, not provincial flags.

Because of this, I do not think that these flags are valid; they seem to be created by a person, not by the institution that they try to represent. And besides, why are these flags not present in other versions of Wikipedia, in Spanish for example.

Además, solicité el borrado de Colón Insular Region. --Pepemar2 (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Trataré de hacer algo poco a poco, porque el daño fue de tal magnitud que es difícil determinar con exactitud lo que necesita restaurarse. Espero iniciar este fin de semana. Quizás lo mejor y rápido sería eliminar la bandera y escudo del Infobox de provincia; aunque no estoy seguro de los escudos ("coats of arms"), las provincias dominicanas no tienen escudos, solamente los municipios. Pero muchos artículos quedarán por mucho tiempo sin arreglar; los de Miss Universo, que no me interesan, presentan una gran cantidad de invenciones: lugares de nacimiento, provincias, universidades, etc. He notado que MURD08 ya no está trabajando aunque aveces entra como OMGcarlos y de manera anónima. --Pepemar2 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambié el Template:Infobox Province Dominican Republic para eliminar la presentación de banderas y escudos; me dio mucho trabajo porque mucho fue cambiado, incluyendo el mapa. User:MRDU08 está modificando lo que hago así que estamos en una guerra. Seguiré haciendo algunas modificaciones pero lentamente ya que es grande el daño. --Pepemar2 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried using the talk page with you SamEV

Tell me about the same issues you were having with the article you mentioned on my talk page.EDGARR (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New Username

He cambiado mi username de Pepemar2 a Jmarcano a fin de unificar mis diversas cuentas. --Jmarcano (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Acabo de ver que estamos en una sub-categoría: White Hispanic American (or so). Estoy en una batalla con MRDU08, que ahora trabaja con User talk:MRDU09. Estoy perdiendo la batalla y el tiempo. Ya he cambiado Template:Infobox Province Dominican Republic dos veces más algunas provincias. Es difícil luchar contra alguien cuyo único objetivo en su vida actual es cambiar la República Dominicana a una que está en su mente. --Jmarcano (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Puedes seguir llamándome Pepe, o simplemente Marcano (aunque en RD Marcano se refiere comúnmente a mi padre; el artículo no lo escribí yo, simplemente lo vigilo para evitar vandalismos). El daño hecho por MRDU08/09 (más otros usernames) es grande porque incluye los mapas y están afectando a otras wikis; he empezado a reponer a algunos pero es un arduo trabajo. Lo que no quiero es que luego de pasar tiempo corrigiendo, encontrarme un día con que todo tengo que rehacerlo. Seguiré intentando pero realmente duele mucho. Según me escribió (en muy mal español, al igual que su inglés) trabaja en Wikidominicana, una wikipedia desarrollada por el ministerio de educación pero que se ha paralizado por lo mala que es; parece que se pasa todo el tiempo en Wikipedia en Inglés y no en Wikidominicana. --Jmarcano (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He visto en Wikidominicana [20] que usa el nombre MRDU08 y que no es realmente un editor permanente allí como quería darme a entender sino uno ocasional. Ha intentando hacer cambios similares (aunque no sé lo de las banderas porque no tienen); a Pedernales trató de cambiar el nombre a Santa Bahía de Pedernales. Pero como Wikidominicana es pequeña con personal dedicado, le es más difícil hacer las locuras que ha hecho en Wikipedia, sobre todo en inglés. --Jmarcano (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No creo que MRDU08 (ahora qué, Santiago09?) sea Gabriel; Gabriel era obsesivo pero siempre daba la cara. No sé si viste el comentario que le escribí sobre la fuente de las banderas; quiere poner a Provincias Dominicanas como una fuente, un simple website, y que para colmo no tiene las banderas y los escudos que presenta son los de ciudades. --Jmarcano (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, intentaré hacer algo sin que detrás de mi vayan deshaciendo lo que hago. Sé que tiene otras cuentas; luego te informo. --Jmarcano (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Disruptive editor

I just blocked the socks and left a message in the main account's talk page. The IP address is autoblocked, so it should stay calm for at least a day. If he goes back at it, let me know. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea for Argentina

Sam:

Thank you for your idea. I agree and have tried to create something similar.

I inserted a "see Demographics of Argentina" note which leads readers interested in genetic studies to that page, where they receive generous and detailed mention. This is what other editors have done in Demographics of Brazil and Demographics of the United States, instead of cluttering the country pages with analysis paralysis.

Besides, keeping such material to the Demographics pages is standard practice and much more thoughtful that imposing it on the country page without consensus, as Dunadan and a few others have tried to do for months now.

Please write me back with any other ideas. Sam, thanks for being part of the (badly needed) solution.

Kindly,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sam.

Dunadan posted a complaint on the Administrator's Noticeboard here, to which I've alreadey reponded.

As a favor, could you please go to that spot and let them know of your suggestion? It was an inventive solution and I don't think anyone could object.

Sam, you're great to set aside time for this.

My regards, again,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, Sam.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I just let you know that I have put the discussion onto a different page, link in bottom Argentina chat, and proposed to archive the rest so the talk page is cleared up a bit, as well as using the bottom for updating progress only.--Chaosdruid (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Argentina immigration/demographic

Hi

Sorry if you took my comments as critising your post - it was extremely interesting and valuable addition to my ref material hence me putting that very comment "Superb for immigration". My comment was to try and prevent the parties using it in any argument for demographic breakdowns - re: the next section and the Great Demographics Debate

As for misquoting, you perhaps did not notice that I was talking about 1940 and so quoting the fig for 1947 ? Is it possible you would mind striking that out/deleting as it seems a little incorrect now and makes me look incapable of correctly reading & quoting figs?

Thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mine lol - I transposed the figs completely incorrectly from a Notepad doc on my other monitor and got the wrong section so didn't notice my mistake till you pointed it out to me. I was using Dunadans percentages of Italian ancestors and trying to show that his figs were not relevant to the demographics debate (hence the incorrect indent where I copied it from my notepad doc)

If you object to the deletion I will be striking out as a matter of course as they are incorrect and jumbled up.

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Picture in White Latin American's Article

Hi SamEV, I think my picture perfectly follows the Article's "Inclusion criteria". The picture is perfectly sourced, there's prove that these girls are from Argentina, and their whiteness leaves no room for debate. Why did you remove it? Do you need to know their entire family tree to know if they're a hundred 100% white? --Grimshep (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SamEv, all the girls in the picture I posted are white. Do you need a newspaper article stating that they have european ancestry? Like the article that is supposed to be Shakira's prove of her whiteness? Would that be a reference? I'm sorry but references can not be used in such sutile things as a person being white or not, specially when that's obvious as in this case. I think your bending the rules to you're own point of view. I agree that 2 of the girls in the other pictures from the website do look as if they had some degree of amerindian mixture, but the ones in the picture I'm using are all white. So? --Grimshep (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SamEv, again, you're bending the rules. So if you see a black guy you can't say he has some degree of African ancestry because there's no reference to prove it? Answer me this, if I find a source proving that they all have european ancestry, will it then be ok to add the picture? --Grimshep (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Latino (demonym)

It is done! Tony the Marine (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of Dominican provinces

See this article: List of Dominican Provinces by the etymology of their name. Incluso el nombre está mal. Lee lo que he escrito en la Discussion y me dices si vale la pena mantener este artículo (para mí no lo vale). Como siempre, es de MRDU08. --Jmarcano (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

El problema con la etimología de los nombres provinciales es que, como entes muy artificiales, corrientemente llevan el nombre de la capital provincial, a veces acortado: Santiago de Santiago de los Caballeros, Azua de Azua de Compostela, San Juan de San Juan de la Maguana. La mayoría de las provincias que tienen nombre diferente a la capital eran provincias que tenían nombre de Trujillo o de un familiar o algo relacionado con él: Peravia (José Trujillo Valdéz, padre), María Trinidad Sánchez (Julia Molina Viuda Trujillo, madre), Elías Piña (San Rafael, su santo). A excepción de esas provincias y algunas más (Espaillat, La Altagracia, Hermanas Mirabal, Valverde), la etimología interesante es la de la ciudad capital, y eso se explicaría en los artículos correspondientes. De todas maneras, dejo el artículo pero no haré correcciones porque sigue pareciéndome innecesario. --Jmarcano (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

El artículo Dominican Republic está mucho mejor y poco hay que agregar; lástima que siempre haya que estar vigilando vandalismos. Espero que muchos se dediquen a trabajar en otros artículos dominicanos porque en esa área estamos muy flojos. Te felicito, porque realmente has trabajado mucho en el artículo. --Jmarcano (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Es mucho trabajo el que has propuesto; veré en lo que puedo ayudar. Si puedes, lee mi comentario en Talk:Dajabón Province sobre las poblaciones. Todo el mundo quiere aumentar las cifras pero no indican de donde obtienen esas cifras; de seguro no es de la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas. Lo que pido es que si no usan las cifras del último censo oficial, que indiquen de donde lo obtienen. --Jmarcano (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

America

Hey. This is probably old news for you and you're probably a little reluctant to get back into this mess, but I've recently proposed some changes on the "Americas" page and we could use your input to help reach a consensus as to whether or not they properly address the NPOV issue currently debated. Your input would be awesome!}

Eliminación de secciones sobre notables en Provincias Dominicanas

Porque me parece que hay demasiadas personas "notables" en cada una de las provincias y sería "favoritismo" o injusto mencionar solo unos cuantos, y no creo que haya espacio para mencionarlos a todos. Si se entiende que son personas notables o destacadas, entonces que le creen una página,y que la página del notable enlace a su ciudad natal. Además ví, si nome equivoco, los nombres de personas que ocupan cargos políticos, lo cual es pasajero y no correcto. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Prefiero español. Mi lengua materna.

Notables es sugestivo, porque cualquiera podría ser considerado. Yo pensaba que los artículos debían tener un tamaño aceptable, y si se abre esa lista, no se sabe a dónde llegará, y entonces habría que trasladarla. Como dices las ciudades natales al incluirlas en las biografías entrelazan, y si como dices ya las listas de notables abundan, no entiendo por qué incluirla en la descripción de las provincias. Las referencias, son fáciles de encontrar, ya que Wikipedia acepta cualquier enlace que aparece en el internet, sin cuestionar de dónde se obtuvieron los datos. Siempre que veo plantillas en los artículos, me parece que se está cuestionando la veracidad del mismo. Pero por eso este espacio es una democracía con reglas flexibles. En cuanto a cambiarel formato de mi respuesta, no tiene importancia. Lo hice porque pensé que la respuesta si podía perder o confundir con el otro texto. Y perdona si mi tono se lee fuerte, para nada estoy molesta. Lo tomaré en cuenta. Gracias por las sugerencias--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nor really...

In fact wikipedia IS my vacation...! Real life has kept me busy and will continue to do so. This was just a small break. See you soon! :) The Ogre (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Labelled Map

I fixed the errors on the Template:Dominican Republic Labelled Map. Cambie todo los nombre cortos. Maybe now you could put in the article =] MRDU08 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

How do you put arrow on the map and how do you put the word sideways. MRDU08 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mapa

Estoy de acuerdo en cuanto que es mejor uno etiquetado (aunque con MRDU08 podría encontrarse de pronto que le cambia los nombres a las provincias) pero, para mí que tengo una conexión lenta, tarda en cargar. Si vas al Template verás que hay un mensaje que no comprendo bien pero aparentemente hay un error. Y lo que quise decir es que si se pone ese mapa debe hacerse los cambios correspondientes: en Dominican Republic, los nombres que aparecen debajo del mapa son redundantes, y en Provinces of the Dominican Republic hay que modificar la tabla porque los números no tienen sentido.

De todas maneras, lo que me molesta es que siempre es tratando de modificar por modificar y no se hace nada nuevo relevante. Ahora hay una discusión sobre si borrar unas páginas que dicho usuario creó con doble redireccionamiento; una de ella es Cámboya (así con falta ortográfica) y la otra es Pedro García, Dominican Republic. Nadie se explica la creación de dichas páginas. Pensé que iba a pasar tiempo haciendo banderas de Perú y Suiza pero aparentemente regresó.

El fin de semana pasado tuvimos muchos problemas en Wikipedia en español porque ocurrió un vandalismo masivo (no había visto algo así) poniendo a todos (todos, incluso los árticos) animales como propios de la República Dominicana. El caso es que tuve que pasar dos días corrigiendo esa situación porque era extremadamente confuso para quien visitara dichas páginas. Y, como dijo uno de los editores, es que esos casos hacen que uno pierda tiempo y deseo. Y es algo similar aquí. De todas maneras, seguiré trabajando pero alejándome de esos artículos problemáticos para no entrar en una guerra de edición. --Jmarcano (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Me parece bien el mapa etiquetado en ambos casos; realmente de lo que me quejo es que hay que completar el trabajo y no dejar tanto que otros lo terminen. En Dominican Republic, habría que quitar entonces el listado de provincias que aparece inmediatamente abajo ya que es redundante; en Provinces of the Dominican Republic habría que modificar la tabla eliminando referencia numérica a un mapa que dejaría de existir. Podría hacerse el cambio, siempre que el mapa etiquetado esté listo y no lo modifique más adelante innecesariamente. Los cambios de mapas pueden ser problemáticos; cuando se cambiaron los mapas provincias (los mapitas que aparecen en los artículos de cada provincia) hubo muchos problemas en otras Wikis por lo que en algunos casos tuvieron que redibujar dichos mapas en algunos casos.

Y, por otro lado, ¿no te parece exageradamente largo Dominican Republic? Viendo lo poco que se trabaja en otros artículos, no entiendo porque la mayoría de los vandalismos y adiciones son hechas en ese artículo? Hay una gran necesidad de crear, ampliar y mejorar los artículos "interiores". --Jmarcano (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mira

I finished doing what you said about the map. MRDU08 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More images added

Hello Sam. I have added more images on White Americans displaying occupational diversity as well as ethnic diversity. The sex ratio is balanced. Let's see we now have English, Spanish, Greek, Swedish, Russian, Scots-Irish, German, Lebanese, North African, Dutch, French, Irish, Scottish, Hungarian ethnicities represented. There is a First Lady, an astronaut, a couple of politicians (male and female), an actress, a comedienne, a model, an opera singer, an Army general, a writer, an ice-skater, a football player, a rock guitarist, a socialite, a dancer. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

On insufficient recent activity

Hi, the thing with AIV is, it is intended for persistent current vandalism, that meaning that any block would be to prevent ongoing disruption. With a regular user, we know that any previous warnings and blocks apply and have been seen directly by the user in question. With an IP however, unless the current edits are to the same articles as previous edits and seem to obviously be the same user, we have to assume that the IP may be dynamic and it may be a completely new user, who may have a> never even edited WP before, b> not seen any of the previous warnings which at any rate do not apply to them. With the report you submitted, the final warning was 2 weeks previously, and the edits at that time were to different subjects and were not obviously the same editor. In this case, to avoid biting a new contributor, it is better to issue a new warning, there should really be a level 4 warning from the past few hours on an IP for us to be fairly confident it is the same user previously warned, and some admins would want to see it even more recent than that. Hope that helps. Mfield (Oi!) 19:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

re: List

I redirected the article to Hispanic and Latino Americans. I don't know about Afd, you have a strong argument but people will make the idealistic argument that the "subject is notable and sources are available", let see what happen with the redirect. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

YOU MUST DISCUSS YOUR CHANGES

I THINK YOU ARE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO IS ALWAYS ADDING WHITE PEOPLE AS HISPANICS AND NOT LETTING HISPANIC AND MEXICAN AMERICAN ARTICLES NOT GETTING CHANGED, YOU HAVE TO GO BY CONSENSUS. REMEMBER I CAN NOW REVERT EVERY SINGLE OF YOUR EDITS WITH NO REASON. YOU MUST GO BY CONSENSUS 06:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.96.166 (talk)

Infobox

Here is an example of what I did in an infobox, in order to cover all the bases:Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please take a look

At this [[21]] nd let me have your comments. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• THANK YOU VERY MUCH.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hispanic and Latino Americans

Sam you asked me to do it and I did. I expanded the military section. Feel free to change the format and to do what you think is right. Your friend, Tony the Marine (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Para mantenerte informado

Lamento enviarte esta información; su única finalidad es para mantenerte informado. Le puse esta nota a MRDU08 (talk · contribs):

No entiendo la razón para cambiar el nombre correcto de artículos a otro incorrecto. Es el caso de Bayaguana. Es posible que la parroquia se llame San Francisco de Bayaguana pero el artículo es sobre el municipio, no la parroquia. Las leyes 4400 del 9 de marzo de 1956 y 5220 del 21 de septiembre de 1959, las leyes que rigen la división territorial dominicana, solamente dicen Bayaguana. Si sabes, pero no imaginando, de alguna ley que haya cambiado oficialmente el nombre, me gustaría conocerla. Y, por favor, no cites a Wiki Dominicana ya que ahí quien cambió el nombre de Bayaguana a San Francisco de Bayaguana fue tu mismo, tal como aparece en el historial.

Lo mismo es el caso de la provincia San Juan; San Juan de la Maguana es la ciudad capital pero la ley 5678 del 25 de noviembre de 1961, que cambió el nombre de la provincia, dice que la provincia es simplemente San Juan. También las leyes dicen que la provincia es Santiago y no Santiago de los Caballeros, que es el nombre de la ciudad cabecera. --Jmarcano (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Le añadí los dos puntos e italicé para aclarar que está citando un mensaje de otra página. SamEV (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gracias por el arreglo. Sobre nuestro problema, MRDU08 (talk · contribs), creo que es necesario hacer algo porque estamos perdiendo demasiado tiempo con su trabajo (destructivo?). He encontrado que está haciendo unos Templates para las provincias donde hace todas las cosas que se le había corregido; por ejemplo, llamando Benemérita de San Cristóbal a San Cristóbal, María Trinidad Nagua a Nagua, Comendador de Lares a Comendador y otros casos. Y sigo dudando mucho de las banderas y escudos; ya he visto que tiene dos banderas diferentes para Santiago de los Caballeros. Incluso me temo que ha estado creando concursos de belleza falso, pero de eso no estoy totalmente seguro porque las referencias que pone no están relacionados con el artículo. Está copiando de Wiki Dominicana artículos sobre municipios y los traduce (?) de manera horrible; ejemplos son Jimaní y Duvergé. Creo que ya es tiempo que se haga algo porque vamos a pasar el tiempo corrigiendo lo que él/ella hace. --Jmarcano (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Olvidé mencionar que le había escrito a Darwinek (talk · contribs); desde que empecé en Inglés, él me ha ayudado con algunos problemas pero nunca como este caso. Además, ha tenido problemas con MRDU08 (talk · contribs) con el nombre de la provincia San Juan, que ha tenido que rehacer varias veces. Pero de todas maneras, creo que enterar a Caribbean no es mala idea porque él ya ha visto los problemas previos. Realmente he sido muy paciente porque no quiero que piensen que es una persecución pero ya se está llegando al límite. Si quieres visita Sánchez, Dominican Republic o Sánchez, Samaná para que vea que cambia el nombre del artículo y inmediatamente regresa el original; esa es una costumbre que no entiendo la finalidad (pero debe haber algo). --Jmarcano (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Siento escribirte en esta misma sección pero espero que de todas maneras la encuentres. Darwinek (talk · contribs) me respondió lo siguiente:

This user has been problematic for a longer time. I suggest reverting him whenever possible. If there will be something more serious, just let me know. He can be even blocked.

De todas maneras, creo que nos veremos en necesidad de tomar una medida drástica en tiempo breve. --Jmarcano (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Siento no haberte respondido antes pero realmente he estado ocupado con otros asuntos aparte de Wikipedia. En relación a MRDU08 (talk · contribs), me parece interesante iniciar algo en WP:ANI, tal como sugieres, ya que dicho usuario ha estado trabajando en muchos países y demasiado facetas erróneas ('hoaxes', violación de derechos, malas traducciones, etc.). Si puedes, inicia la solicitud y trataré de apoyarte. Tal como dije, tengo problemas de tiempo y oportunidad. --Jmarcano (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Latino article

Hi. I happened to notice in observing, that you keep removing images from the Black Hispanic article. Every other article about an American ethnic group (Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, African Americans) all have sample images of celebrities from that ethnic group. So it looks stupid for this article to be the only one not to have it.

The people added to these images were all people featured on the article List of Afro-Latinos. So if you dispute that these people are Black Hispanics, please remove them all from that article as well. Why are not disputing and editing that article too? I'm sure we can as a group find an example of ONE black hispanic person to add to this article. This article should fit into the same format as the others.

Why should this be the only Wikipedia article about an ethnic group that doesn't feature photos?

Do the other articles have "written proof" that the people identify themselves as such group?

How do you know the people featured in those photos don't identify themselves as a black latino?

Thanks.

--Mezaco (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but gee, I guess it's a lot easier to delete things than to do the work of actually improving or replacing them. I love Wikipedia editors who slash, cut and delete things like crazy, but then profess to be "not interested" in doing the work of actually making it better. You think a Flag better represents this group of people? A flag???

And I do apologize for initially putting my comments on your User Page. It was a mistake. But as you can clearly see, I fixed my error immediately afterwards, so there's no need to scold me about it.

Thanks anyway and have a nice day!! (For the record, I still think you were totally unjustified in removing Rosario Dawson as an example of a black hispanic person. Hmmm....maybe she's Korean?)

--Mezaco (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to know you love so many Wikipedians.

I don't know who added the flag, but I agree with you that it doesn't represent the group. So I removed it, too; the two of them, actually.

I do not believe that writing the same message on my talk page, but leaving the one you'd already written on my user page, is a 'correction' of your error.

Yeah, perhaps Dawson's Korean. Not my first guess, though. But I'm not interested in playing any guessing games... or any game for that matter.Good day. SamEV (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummayyad invasion of Hispania

My thought was, that it seemed like that the mention of Charles Martel justs pops out of nowhere and really has no relevance concerning Al-Andalus. I'm not really fervid about it. So as long as the article flows, then I'm satisfied. Nice re-write, btw. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither

I am neither of these editors. I have one account. Everything I edited on is linked from each page one way or another except for henry hill. I was wacthing good fellas. Also you have a thing of calling different people sockpuppets if they don't agree with what you are saying.

You too have violated the 3rr rule. Be care ful with your edits. CashRules (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusations

While I have no problem with your barkings toward User:Cali567, to make accusations (in the summary of all places) that I am in any way connected to that user, is very personal and against policy. Please make whatever edits you see fit (with sources) and I will do the same. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My "barkings" are based on similarities I've observed between your edits and his and the timing of both your editing.

By the way, I suggested that you're the same editor; I made no firm accusation.

And by all means, though, edit constructively. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much sums it up...

"Considering your radical behavior lately, you are more likely to be blocked than I am. Disagreeing with me in one article does not give you the permission to undermine my contributions throughout the site." - A User to YOU.

It seems that you feel your very important when it comes to this "encyclopedia". Sometimes you may feel you own it..? But others can see through you. Take a break sometime. Cali567 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cali, I think it's awesome that you agree with an unconstructive comment by a user who was, in fact, blocked for his quite unconstructive behavior. What's that say about you?

Btw, the timing of your message was incredible, because that was the day I had indeed decided to take a break to attend to matters of greater importance than dealing with the likes of you. SamEV (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I'd advise you not to quit. Cali567 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Venting

*sigh* What is it about that article and that subject that seems to attract them? Why can we just for once have someone that actually wants to add good content to that article? I'm busy now because of school but when I am done and have some free time in my hand I swear I will do a complete redo of that article. The state it is in is shameful. One would think that the second largest ethnic minority in this country would have a much better article but these fools can't help but come by and degrade the article little by little everyday. I've had enough of it. Oh well just needed to get that out there back to my exams...--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Hello SamEV. Only now I saw that you did me a question 2 months ago in the talk page of article Ethnic groups in Brazil. I answered it, I hope not too late...sorry, lol. [22] Opinoso (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

MRDU08 has been blocked!

Finalmente, han "bloqueado" a MRDU08, y aparenta que ha cansado a demasiado personas. Ahora tenemos el trabajo de corregir los daños causados, y son muchos! Y en artículos de una gran cantidad de países. Pero solamente veré los dominicanos y podré trabajar con calma. --Jmarcano (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation (America/s)

Hey Sam! User:Geoff Plourde has agreed to take up the case that I filed a while ago. Mediation taking place here. Your input would be hugely appreciated. Thanks! Night w (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to you?

Did you leave Wikipedia? Is it because of the valdal users around? Don't do that, because that's their wish: see us out of Wikipedia, so that they can be free to vandalyze the articles. Do not give up! lol Opinoso (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Second that!!! Dude, you are needed! Night w (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Category Deletion Discussion -- Italian Americans

Pls note that there is a category deletion discussion re Italian Americans afoot at [23]--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

what a surprise

wow, I thought you left Wikipedia for good. It's good to see you back. Opinoso (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens and en dashes

In this difference you changed all the hyphens to en dashes in the compound adjectives in the Sonia Sotomayor article. This is not correct, hyphens are used in compound adjectives, en dashes are used for other purposes such as ranges and conveying other relationships. En dashes are only used in compound adjectives for special cases, which is explained in the en dash article. Unfortunately I cannot undo the diff because of intermediate edits, it would be nice if you could change the dashes back to hyphens. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. SamEV (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Hello

Sam, it is always nice to hear from you. How you been doing? As for myself, I take it easy in regard to my writing during the summers (it's too hot and I get tired). I do have a project in my mind and that is to write in the future something about the Puerto Rican experience in World War I. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Thought you'd like to know, I cleaned up all the other hispanic info boxes I could find. I kept the images that were there, added images to some boxes that had none.--Work permit (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

made some more crops. While I was at it, I took the microphone out of cesar cavez's pic and touched it up.--Work permit (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation?

I was thinking of bringing User talk:Rahuljohnson4u to mediation to discuss edit summaries. Do you think that would be helpful? If I did this, would you be a willing participant? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because of an out-of-date year-old warning? (I guess not. I'll drop you from the list of "prospectives"  :). Sorry. Student7 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Wow, long talk page! You might want to consider signing up to use MiszaBot to auto-archive your discussions to keep your page at a reasonable length.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WW II

You know me I won't mine. Let's do it the proper way first, to avoid the messes that some people make. Put the suggestion up in the articles talk page for a seven day consensus. I'm sure that nothing will happen, I will close the consensus and then I will move the page and you make the additions. Take care my friend. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sam I gave it a second thought after thinking about it and I have my reservations about changing the tittle of the article. You know that you and I are real good friends who are level headed (unlike so many others) and proud of our heritage. The situation is that the article reached "Featured Article status" plus, was featured in Wikipedia's main page with it's current title without any problems and to change it to "Hispanic and Latino Americans in World War II" would create confusion and controversy, especially from those who wish that such an article telling about our contributions to said conflict did not exist in the first place (you know the Anti-Hispanics/Latinos). When the article was nominated for "Featured Status" we received a lot of flack from the "anti" group, but we were able to survive.

As you pointed out some people preferrer to be referred as "Latinos" while others as "Hispanics" being members of the same group. This is also true for some people prefer to be called "Chicanos," "Tejanos", "Nuyoricans", "Borigringos" and so on, but we can't make everyone happy. Even though Hispanics are Latinos because of their roots to Spanish Latin America, not all Latinos are Hispanics since there are those whose Latin American descendants may be from Portugal and France. This is case where we have to depend on the terminology provided by the US Census Bureau and not by what we preferrer to be called.

However, I will do the following. In the opening sentence and in the terminology section I will make it clear that Hispanics are also referred to as "Latinos." I hope that you understaand that I want to keep other people who have no knowledge of our history from using any excuss with the intention of destroying one of our greatest articles with an endless potential war-editting. Tu amigo. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague

I have nominated Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

To all my friends in Wikipedia. After so many years I have decided to take an extended leave from the project. My continued participation in the project has become less enjoyable as I have explained here. I thank God that I became involved in the project in the first place because not only have I used it to educate others, but I have also learned a lot from friends such as yourself. Try to maintain a high standard in your contributions and make sure that the truth is always told in what you write. I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year, may God Bless you and thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)