Regarding the articles Demographics of the Philippines and Ethnic Groups of the Philippinesedit
Actually, the first header clearly states the following percentages as 'Ancestry Percentages' and not 'race percentages'. And also, that's why the article is named 'Ethnic Groups of the Philippines' and not as 'Races of the Philippines. There are only four words spelled 'race' that are present in the article (which are really, by the way, wrong in some aspects). I can't just figure out why many of us Filipinos claim being the melting pot of Asia or have part Foreign (whether it be Spanish, European, Chinese, Arab, etc) ancestry and then when an article like this comes, they say it's too racist.
As a matter of fact, it is the Filipinos, who claim to be part of the Malay 'race'. The DK Reference Factbook (2005 edition) even says that the Filipinos comprise a measly 50% of the country's total population. For info's sake, the National Statistics Office does not include ethnicity in its surveys. Hence, any population proportion may be acceptable, because it's simply subjective in the sense that there is no authority whether Filipinos really comprise 50% of the population or 98%. It is how Filipinos (incl. Mestizos, FIlipino CHinese, FIlipino Arabians, FIlipino Negritos, etc.) define themselves. And also, there are many Filipinos who have a white or pale skin. Do you really think that they are pure Austronesians/Malays/whetever? Of course there has been extensive commerce betwene the Filipinos and the Xinese, that presently, it is estimated that up to 50% of all FIlipinos may have Chinese blood. I think it is not included in the article, because anyone who puts an info like that gets branded as a 'racist' by other fellow Wikipedians. Actually, it is not racism, it just represents the right of other ethnicites to get recognized. It is ike denying the FIlipinos who are of Spanish, VIetnamese, Malaysian, or of Any descent to have representation in the country's tabulation of ethnicity. The article is merely parsimonious- simple yet comprehensive. In my opinion there is only one fault- the author failed to give more information about the Igorots, Highland Tribes, Manobos, Lumads, Gaddangs, and Badjaos. But I think if the article defined 'Badjaos' as Malaysians, which theoretically, is true (Badjaos are natives of Semporna, Sabah before their ancestors got into the seafaring lifestyle)), there would be another branding as 'racist'. I think having an open mind would lead to to accept that there are really significant minorities residing in our country who have contributed much to ous culture and have lived in ur country to share our hopes and aspirations. I would commend on Christopher Sundita, for he really has an open-mind, and is matur enough to accept that reality. (P.S. The Ivatans language and physiognomy would closely show that they are more closer to the Formosans than to us mainstream FIlipinos, but they are still FIlipinos. Labeling them as Formosans just defined their ancestry- which in fact, is in Formosa/Taiwan.)
Yes, ur right, but in actual population proportion during the Spanish Era, (Fr. Les Philippines by Jean Mallat), the Spaniards make 110,000 of the total population in 'Luconia' (present-day Luzon), while that of the 'Tagalas' (they call all Filipinos Tagalas then) is 220,000. Based on that figure, it then seems like 33% of all Luzonians are now-Spanish. And Europeans, in say, for example, Japan, are mostly exptriates and are not permanent residents of the country, while here in the Philippines, there really are many Europeans permanently residing with their FIlipina wives(a carry over from the American colonial era). That's why there are many Filipinos (particularly in the entertainment industry), who carry surnames not typically 'Spanish' or 'Tagalog', but European. (The Encyclopedia Americana in the 1960 edition, it included the British, French, and Swiss in its demographics of the Philippines. Actually, it was said that the Spaniards planned to move all Spanish Jews (Marranos) here during the Spanish colonial period, and so they did (although just a small portion of the total Jewish [population in Spain.) The Jews had a wide influence during the Spanish colonial period in Mindanao, however, they were driven by the hostility towards Arabs and FIlipino Muslims, and many immigrated to the States. The reason why Jews were not recognized as significant in the history of the Philippines is due to the fact that all persons from Spain (thus, including Jews) are put under an umbrella called 'Spaniards'. That is why we Filipinos still call Basques, Galicians, and Catalans as Spanish, even though Spanish as a term really connoted the Castilians only. And also, the Spanish Jews were already speaking a dialect of Spanish, so they were considered as Spaniards by the people of our country. You may ask, why then did the Arabs and the FIlipino Muslims harassed the Jews, if they were known for being a Spanish? It is becoz the Filipino Muslims were soemwhat hostile then to all Spanish, and so they harassed the latter until they immigrated away in droves to the UNited States during the American tutelage. Btw, I think that labeling Filipinos as 'Malays' is totally wrong, for they are descended from Austronesians who came first from China to FOrmosa (Taiwan), then to the Philippines, before continuing on towards present-day Malaysia. Filipinos are NOT malays, they just bear resemblance and the physiognomy of the Malays, just as the Spaniards who bear the resemblance of Italians, and Argentinians bearing the resemblanbce of Mexicans. Because Filipinos and Malays belong to the same Austronesian stock, but they are not similar or domineering over the other, like the Spanish and the Italians, both belonging to european stock, but neither the spanish nor the italians domineering over the other.I think this is an equal view.
Btw, sana we will be able to find a real listing of peoples of different natianlities residing in the Philippines, so as to stop this conflagrating talk if FIlipinos really are Malays, Austronesians, or whatever. Cheers!
Hi.
No need to start calling people fanatics and not assume their good faith. Let's examine some statements based on their accuracy and not for any other reason. If you think they are accurate or inaccurate please state your reasons. --Nino Gonzales 16:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Filipinos are Asian
Accurate. Asia is a geographical term. The Philippines are located in Asia.
Filipinos are Malay
Inaccurate. If there is at least one Filipino who is not Malay, then this statement is inaccurate. St. Lorenzo Ruiz is not Malay and is Filipino. Therefore Filipinos are not Malay. The Igorots are not Malay and they are Filipinos. Therefore Filipinos are not Malay. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera is not Malay and is Filipino. Therefore Filipinos are not Malay.
Some (or even most) Filipinos are Malay
Accurate. In so far as there is such thing as race (something which is disputed), most Filipinos belong to the race which is generally identified by their brown skin color, straight to slightly wavy hair, not as chinky eyed as Chinese and not as large-eyed as Caucasians; the race which is generally identified as Malay.
Filipinos are Mestizos
Inaccurate. Mestizos is generally defined as a person who has ancestors who are considered to not belong to the same race. Many Filipinos have ancestors who are all considered to belong to the same race. Therefore not all Filipinos are Mestizos. Therefore "Filipinos are Mistizos" is inaccurate.
Some Filipinos are Mestizos
Accurate. Mestizos is generally defined as a person who has ancestors who are considered to not belong to the same race. Many Filipinos have ancestors who are considered to not belong to the same race. Therefore some Filipinos are Mestizos. Therefore "Some Filipinos are Mistizos" is accurate. In terms of %, I think 2% is too small. I think 50% of the people I know have some non-Malay ancestors. Most of this 50% have Chinese blood and many have Spanish blood.
Filipino is a race
I think this is inaccurate. My opinion is that based on the history of the word Filipino and the ambiguous meaning of race, Filipino should not be defined in terms of race. Filipino originally denoted belongingness to a community in a certain geography rather than race; the Spaniards who called themselves Filipinos did not do so because of their ancestry; they did so because they were living in a place which happened to be called Philippines. After the Philippine revolution, Filipino still did not refer to race or ethnicity. Rizal, Aguinaldo, Quezon, Osmena, Pardo de Tavera all considered themselves and by everyone else as Filipino. Yet, they could not all be classified into a race. That would be like classifying Martin Luther King and George Bush into a race. A cultural or political definition of Filipino would probably be better.
Can I ask, why did you removed the Jews section on the article Ethnic Groups of the Philippines. It seems that you are too biased against Jews, why?
And, why don't you accept the very simple fact that the Philippines has many foreign communities? Their very presence is so obvious that the fact is right under your nose, unless of course, you are not a Filipino and/or you haven't yet visited the Philippines. In nearly every university, there are many Indo-Aryans (Indians and Pakistanis), Arabs, Persians, and Koreans. In the business world, especially those in Makati City, there are many Americans and Europeans, also around the hinterlands of the Philippines. As for the Vietnamese, they have intermixed with the Filipinos in the locality where trhey live. Indo-Aryans are as common sight as the Chinese. Many Filipinos are not brown, but white-possibly from the influence of Chinese and/or Spanish blood.
Although everyone is openly invited to do some edits on Philippine articles, I suggest that you do some travelling to the Philippines or deep research about Philippine ethnology to open your horizons regarding the Philippines and its people.
Kindly state your credentials as a self-proclaimed ethnologist of the Philippines. Are you a Filipino born, bred, and educated in the Philippines? I find your views baseless and a product of your own opinion and imagination. You can’t even state an authentic literature as to where you get your information. Please stop comparing the history of the Philippines to that of Latin American Countries.
To Al Andalus- This article contains the history of the Basque in the Philippines
Center for Basque Studies University of Nevada, Reno
Basque Studies Program Newsletter · Issue 20, 1979
http://basque.unr.edu/09/9.3/9.3.20t/9.3.20.04.philip.htm
I being born and raised in the Philippines and attended the University of the Philippines in Diliman agree with this.
I noticed that you sent the Image:Zambo.jpg.
Would you like to write about pintura de castas and the racial classifications in Spanish America or at least to provide more pics?
Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Mestizo.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 06:50, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Mis modificaciones en el articulo "hispanic" pretendían distinguir "hispanic" de "hispanic american" y de "hispanics in United States".
Con la distinción entre "hispanic american" e "hispanic in United States" pretendía crear un artículo sobre los hispanoamericanos desde una perspectiva más general. El artículo, tal y como está, define a los hispanos desde el punto de vista estadounidense, e incluso, desde el punto de vista del censo estadounidense.
Por otro lado, nunca he escrito que los españoles no son hispanos. Son hispanos, pero no son hispanoamericanos. Siento que me hayas interpretado mal.
Las razones por las que consideras que los filipinos no son hispánicos son discutibles. Dices:
But you must concede that the culture of the Philippines is not a Hispanic one, it is one which has Hispanic influences, among various other foreign elements of influence including Chinese, Arabic and Muslim through Indonesia and Indian Hindu through Malaysia, but which remains
fundementally native.
Eso también podría decirse de los países americanos. La cultura de los países latinoamericanas no es sólo hispánica (en el sentido restrictivo y original de propio de la Península Ibérica). Recoge también influencias de las civilizaciones de los americanos autóctonos o de los africanos, entre otras.
El sentido primero de "hispánico" se amplió así para abarcar la cultura de los países latinoamericanos. Vea la página de desambiguación.
¿Por qué está definición más amplia de lo hispano no puede incluir elementos "Chinese, Arabic and Muslim through Indonesia and Indian Hindu through Malaysia", pero sí azteca o yoruba?
Se distinguiría así entre hispano asiático (Filipino) e hispanoamericano. Gimferrer
¡He ahí en lo que respondes la respuesta que buscas!===
"But you must concede that the culture of the Philippines is not a Hispanic one, it is one which has Hispanic influences, among various other foreign elements of influence including Chinese, Arabic Muslim through Indonesia and Indian Hindu through Malaysia, but which remains fundementally native."
Eso también podría decirse de los países americanos. La cultura de los países latinoamericanas no es sólo hispánica (en el sentido restrictivo y original de propio de la Península Ibérica). Recoge también influencias de las civilizaciones de los americanos autóctonos o de los africanos, entre otras.
¡EXACTO!
La cultura de hispanoamérica es una cultura "hispánica...[que]...recoge también influencias de las civilizaciones de los americanos autóctonos o de los africanos, entre otras." Pero estos elementos son tan sólo influencias a lo que es una cultura de cimientos Hispánicos. Las aportaciones de aquellas mencionadas "influencias" no cualifican a esta cultura en una indígena ni en una africana. No hay de confundirse entre el origen de la cultura popular hispanoamericana y el de las culturas de los pueblos indígenas o de los pueblos afro-latinos que han contribuído a ella.
Asimismo, la cultura de Filipinas es una cultura nativa que recoge influencias de las civilizaciones de musulmanes indonesios (y árabes por medio de estos), hindúes malayos (e indios por medio de estos) hispanos y anglo-americanos, entre otras. Pero estos elementos son tan sólo influencias a lo que es una cultura de cimientos malayos filipinos (que además provienen no sólo del puebo tagalo, sino también de un centenar de otros pueblos oriundos). Las aportaciones de aquellas mencionadas "influencias" no cualifican a la cultura contemoránea de Filipinas en una cultura musulmana, ni indonesia, ni árabe, ni hindú, ni india, ni china, ni hispana, ni americana. No hay de confundirse entre la cultura popular filipina y el de las culturas de los que han contribuyido a ella, que por cierto ya no viven ni representan ni si quiera una significante minoría en el archipielago.
La cultura de los amerindios quechuas, guaraníes y aymaras por ejemplo, están en la misma situación que la cultura del de los Filipinos, son todas culturas nativas, pero con influencias hispánicas. Y en realidad, habría mucha más influencia hispana en las culturas de los nativos americanos antes que el de los Filipinos - pero pese a esto, el hecho sigue siendo simple; todas estas culturas siguen siendo en todo sentido pueblos y culturas nativas. Y a los pueblos y a las culturas nativas de la america de habla hispana se les tendría (si se tuviese que hacer) que calificar de hispana mucho antes de que se le calficara de tal a la cultura de las Filipinas. Pero tal cosa nunca se tendría que hacer, y por esto ni se sugiere tal calificación de la actuales autócotnos americanos, ni de sus culturas como las son y se las practican hoy en día. ¿Entonces, por qué sí se quiere calificar así a los filipinos y a su cultura?
Como ejemplo también te daré a la cultura popular de los Estado Unidos. La cultura popular de EEUU es Anglo, por cual razón se le denomina "Anglo-American culture" a pesar que también tiene harta influencia céltica (irlandés, escocés y galés), alemán, italiana, báltica e hispana, etc. Pero en sus fundaciones, las pilastras de la cultura Americana es ANGLO y al rededor del mundo se la conoce como tal.
No se dice de la cultura Americana de Anglo por que se quiera decir que es la misma cultura de Inglaterra, mas sí porque deriva principalmente de ella. Y así pues, la cultura de Filipinas no deriva principalmente de la cultura de España, por lo cual no se la conoce de hispana ni en el propio archipielago ni en el mundo.
A pesar que la porción que se presta de lo hispano en la cultura filipina es sin duda generosa, no es tan generoso como los prestamos hechos por la cultura Anglo-American hacia la cultura filipina en sus decadas de dominio, pero nunca se sugeriría que la cultura de Filipinas es Anglo.
De esta misma forma, la suma de influencias conjuntas (que se halla en la cultura popular filipina de la era contemporanea) hecha por los chinos, indonesios y malayos es tan importante que el de los posteriores dos, aunque no tanto que el de los americanos primero e hispanos segundo. Y todas estas antedichas influencia en masa; hispana, anglo-american, china, indonesia, malayo, musulman, hindú no compara con lo fundamental y las pilastras de la que se basa la cultura Filipina, o sea, lo más importante y numerosos es sin duda lo nativo filipino.
Hola, es mi entender que los judios que llegaron a Suriname tenian raices en ambos paises ibericos, pero que hablaron mas portugues que español o ladino... Ciao, User:Mediterraneo
Sí, pero es entendido que los judíos portugueses (que son Sefardíes) fueron alguna vez originarios de España (Sefarad). Los judíos portugueses son aquellos que inmigraron de España hacia Portugal, y puede decirse españoles de ellos. Es más, en esa época, a la comunidad judía en Portugal muchas veces se les denominada de españoles, por esto esta comunidad judía portuguesa tenía (y algunos aún tienen) como su lengua materna al ladino, la cual es tan sólo un dialecto castellano. Obviamente ladino era lengua de casa, y el habla contidiano de los judíos portugueses era el portugués, la lengua de Portugal.
En fin, estoy de acuerdo con el cambio que has hecho en el artículo de Suriname, cambiando "Spain" a "Iberia". "Iberia" es un término neutral e incluye a ambos paises y sus comunidades judías. Al-Andalus 02:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
I suggest that everything about the Philippines should be written by a Filipino(particularly one who was born and raised in the Philippines) and not by a non-Filipino because he knows more about his culture and country.
Yes, I agree a Filipino who not only was born and raised in the Philippines but also somebody who knows not only the Philippine history and culture but the the History of the Colonial Philippines as well.
Hey this is unfair! Stop trying to create an outsider mentality. This is open source. As long as the edits can be backed up by references, Al-Andalus can write anything he wants.--Jondel 01:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. Al-Andalus can write anything he wants. He doesn't have to be a Filipino to write about the Philippines or its culture and its history. Who made that rule? You stated that "everything about the Philippines should be written by a Filipino." How absurd is that statement? Who says you have to be Filipino to write about the Philippines and its history? Is that in the Philippine Constitution? There are lots of Americans that write about other cultures and histories including the Philippines. So, why can't Al-Andalus do the same thing? Let him do what he wants to do. He's just merely stating the fact that Philippine culture is shaped by outside influences mainly by the Spanish and the Americans. If you deny that, you deny history! Philippine culture is unique in its own right. So, be proud of it. One more thing, stop the anti-spanish or anti-american tirade! It's so passé!
Please do eliminate any anti-Spanish/American and POV statements. I've only reworded history books and sources which tend to be pro-Philippines. I do want a fact based neutral, encyclopedic presentation. I encourage you to create an account.--Jondel 23:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the Philpippines is better defined as a "protectorate", so why didn't you put that there in the first place? Also, the question of whether or not the Philippines was an American occupation is debatable and IS POV. Refer to US government articles and university papers where the Philippines was often mentioned as a colony. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming I don't know what the definition of colony is. Surely, you are not the authority on the history of the Phillipines.
I've started a little project at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Template:Judaism as you can see...please help out in any way you can, or tell me why I should just stop it. :-p TomerTALK 12:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Firstly, thank you for expanding the etymology section of the Australia article. We are currently attempting to achieve feature status for the article, and part of that drive involves referencing. You stated in your edit summary that your changes were based on Australian school curriculum, so I assume you have sources at hand. Would you be able to help us by providing them for referencing? --Cyberjunkie 04:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
On closer review, it seems associated articles actually contradict your changes to the etymology section. If you could please provide your sources so that your edits may be substantiated. See the article's talk page for further discussion.--Cyberjunkie 07:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
Quoted from the edit sumamry posted by El_C: While the influential Keshet (led by Prof. Yehuda Shenhav) attempted to introduce the term recently, it saw widespread opposition and is seldom used.
Attempted to introduce the term recently? Recently? The term "Arab Jew" exists from prior to the coinaje of "Mizrahi". Get your facts straight.
It saw widespread opposition? By whom? That's right, only the Ashkenazim (and some Mizrahim who have all but swallowed the Ashkenazi story) who would not benefit from the strengthening of said identity, which has always existed by the way. Whether "Arab Jew" as a term or Arab Jewish" as an identity was almost completely exterminated and fogotten in favour of a collective "Jewish Israeli" (Ashkenazi) identity, and is now being revived by those who have never stopped regarding themselves as such (as Arab Jews), is one thing; that they have never identified in a Arab Jewish context or that the term "Arab Jew" is a recent invention is another thing. The fallacy obviously being the latter of the two suggestions.
Is seldom used? No one is arguing that point. Having said that, isn't that what the point of including it as an alternative term is all about? The fact that IT IS in fact an alternative term, whether used seldomly or extensively?
I suggest you yourself go back and revert the page, unless you want to try to argue a point which can't be argued. Al-Andalus 09:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Suggestion noted.
I never argued it was exclusively used recently.
It saw widespread opposition; I am not able to see any of the claims you are forwarding about the composition and (pre)disposition of the opposition from the news items I read.
The point of adding as an alternative to the lead is largely based on extent of use.
I am relying largely on the conventions used in .he, their article is far more extensive than this one, and (seemingly) accurate, too. I intended to translate it, in fact, but never got around to it.
Please try to relax; I really don't care that much about this issue, nor do I know a great deal on it. If you do, please cite your sources.
You have been blocked for violating the wikipedia:three revert rule for 24 hours. If you feel you have been blocked in error, or if there is anything else I should be aware of, please email me. smoddy 20:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I am afraid that I don't currently have the time to mediate a dispute like this. However,on a quick glance, I cannot see the supposed corrections of International English that you claim to exist. Once again, I am sorry that I cannot find the time to have a closed look, but I hope that you can sort your dispute out. Best regards, smoddy 10:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please, instead of adding USA to the article for the n^th time, take a minute to read the Discussion page, that's what they are for. There's a voting going on on the subject, and it would be a lot more constructive if you expressed your thoughts there instead of undoing someone else's edits over and over. thanks, Mariano 11:25, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your revert at Whites was not needed. If you had a problem with something, you should have just changed that and explained why you did it in your edit summary. Using revert will change everything back even if you shouldn't change everything back. Please do not be lazy by reverting, taking time to edit, only revert when you have to. 65.42.87.249 18:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Irish Catholics are still seen as non-white by some people in the south. And to say yesteryear, that would also be true for the Jews and all the other groups. If you do not list Irish Catholic, you should not list any of them.
65.42.87.249 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Brown is mainly used by Hispanics, they are the ones who created the term for themselves, and it hasn't taken off outside the Hispanic community or even in the Hispanic community too much.
65.42.87.249 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do not revert any of these additions because they are all legit. If you still have a problem with it, explain why on my talk page, but you should not anymore.
65.42.87.249 23:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you explain your changes at Talk:Wog? You're removed a reference to the Levant, and made stylistic changes that are at best neutral, but the bulk of your changes involves unnecessary detail about films which belongs elsewhere (in the relevant articles about the films, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Afro-Bolivians.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under
the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Nv8200p(talk) 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First, I only reverted the box, second it was others who demanded the US go in there. I have changed the countries but left the box small. I cannot accept your promoting big country crusade, so please do not revert, ie Colombia, Spain,. Mexico and Argentina are not the most important Spanish speaking country, and other than their size I can't imagine why you chose them. Perhaps you live in one of them? SqueakBox 15:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I notice you changed the term "Native Americans" to "Amerindians". Does this reflect a consensus? Are you planning to start a war with the bot who seems to be changing "Indian" to "Native American" across the board? --GraemeMcRae 02:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Refering to the talk page at Demographics of the Philippines, there was mention of Jews. I 'dl like to research this topic but nothing comes up in the web, least of all Google. There was a temple where an Avon building stands now nr corner Taft and Quirino. If you know anything about Jews in the Philippines , pls let me know.--Jondel 05:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much, please understand that you are very very welcome to create the article your self. The seminal article I will be creating will almost be a word for word copy of your discussion. I expect it to grow of course from other contributers.I feel there were many conversos and marranos but intermingled with other kastilas specially if they have names like Blanco, Rosa, names that comes from words and not traditional Spanish names.--Jondel 01:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Al, I think we should be putting back the reference/citation to the PDF about the Sephardim para no ser malentendido. It is precisely to avoid accusations of plagiarism and referencing is a form of acknowledgement. Is there a reason they should not be referenced? I believe that what happened to me was that I just happened to be a favorite target for accusations of plagiarism but I chose to fight on. The down-side of open source is that you can expect a lot of (misinterpreting) disputes. --Jondel 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Al-Andulus! Well, I'm not really partial to either American English or Commonwealth English. I live in Ireland, so we get some of both. I prefer American English in some respects and Commonwealth English in others, and I don't find speakers of either type to be on average any more articulate or well-spoken than the other. As for the article, I do indeed think both of your points were legitimate, nor did I find your edits to be poor English in any way. I tried for compromise edits that would address your concerns without changing those aspects that Jayjg and TShilo wanted to retain. They didn't revert, and you seem pleased, so I'm happy with the outcome. I've had a couple vigorous disagreements over content with Jayjg, but he's really not so bad. In fact, in many ways he's very good, though that can be hard to see when you're locked in a content dispute with him. Regardless, I'm happy that you're happy with my edits, I hope you and Jayjg come to a detente of some sort, and I look forward to seeing you around! Babajobu 05:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This may be an odd question, but I just stumbled acoss something you wrote in White (People), and your writing style looks very familiar to me. Have we participated at the same conferences, or are you a published author on racialism? Feel free to email privately if you wish to remain anonymous -- FrankWSweet 12:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Al-Andalus. Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. I've just read what you left me, and man that is pretty disturbing and sad. This makes the Bilal Skaf incident look very marginal. Let's pray that this violence, racism and hatred comes to an end very soon. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, actually, it doesn't make what Skaf did look "marginal". What Skaf did was beyond belief. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Why do you keep insisting on omitting the initial incident????--CltFn 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Actually that is not me who keeps inserting the sexual assault stuff. Its another editor that keeps tagging that into my intro.--CltFn 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
No I did not , you are seing things now?--CltFn 03:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Apologies to the things I missed, I didn't mean to simply wipe out everything! Be nice. I'll just correct the sections I need. - Gt 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Wogfreezone.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
I would appreciate it if you would keep away from my edits. What I added was a reasonable contribution, and I believe it to be quite arbitrary of you to delete it simply because of your beliefs.
-HomerJay603
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Image copyright problem with Image:Amerindian_leaders.jpgedit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 07:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have to keep in mind that an encyclopedia is never harmed by extra information, provided that this information is correct. You have said to me that " I don't find anything particularly incorrect with your contribution".
Simply because this information may offend you does not give you the right to delete it. I see that you have been reprimanded for your actions. I also see that you are not an administrator. Regardless of your opinions on this matter, you must remember that you are not an administrator, and therefore you should not take the place of one. If you do not like my contributions, then take your greviances up with those in charge. If you continue to delete my contributions, I will.
--HomerJay603 01:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Miss chola cuencana 2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 01:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw your most recent edit to the "related ethnic group" category at Filipino people. Thanks, I think that's a very good compromise and for now that will be the version I'll be defending in case of reverts and such. --Chris S. 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Guidelines for writing the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines Articleedit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A plan for this article was proposed to the community for more than one week. No one opposed. If you disagree with the outline or the guidelines, it would be great if we could discuss them.--Nino Gonzales 13:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Al-Andalus. Now we are discussing in English... when will we stop fighting and reverting each other through all Wikipedias? Well. Look: Yma Sumac (it is, Zoila Augusta Emperatriz Chávarri del Castillo, a complete Spanish name), respected and well-recognized opera singer, is, in fact, phenotypicallyamerindian. But, is that your proof to say she is pure amerindian? The same for Juan Diego Flórez. What makes you to suppose he is pure white? I don't understand how a man (it is, you) who seems to know very much about human races, can be capable to give that kind of proof about racial origins (I believe that, after I wrote in the article Discusión:Perú at Spanish Wikipedia, you don't suppose I'm a racist anymore). What I want to say is: face, identity (case of Yma Sumac, whose music I like very much) and even phenotype are not enough evidence about racial roots of somebody. As we (PeruvianWikipedians) said at Spanish Wikipedia, it might be done a personal DNA exam to determine the cue racial roots of a person. I know what I'm speaking about when I say Yma Sumac and Juan Diego Flórez are Mestizos... so, please stop reverting my editions. I think you'll request some proof of my saying. Well, my proof is that I always give: at least the majority of Quechua-speakingAmerindianPeruvian tribe brings in their blood some mixing. This is well-proved in most of written chronicles and books about the Spanish Conquest of Peru that almost all Spaniards made families here, in the former Inca Empire, with Quechua-speakingamerindian people. Just several years later (near 100 years), started a regular migration line from Spain to America. You can see that by inspecting surnames and familiar relationships between Peruvian people. Want some names of authors and chronists? Answer me. Sincerely, CUADRADO ORTIZ, Juan Carlos Lima, Thursday, February 23, 2006.
Hi another time. Let me explain another case to you. Here is a locally-known Afro-Peruvianmusic singer, called Miguel González (alias Miki). He said his roots are black, spite of he is phenotypically white (he said himself hat he is just 1/8 black), and so... he says he must give a tribute to his roots. Is he black, according the identity he wanted to take? Is he white, according to his race? I think he is white, because we're talking about race, not identity. Don't you agree with me? More. Juan Diego Flórez is phenotypically white, curl-haired, so I don't know how did you do for discovering black roots inside him. And respect to Yma Sumac, how do you explain her birth name (totally Spanish)? Sincerely, CUADRADO ORTIZ, Juan Carlos Lima, Thursday, February 23, 2006.
Hi again. I see you agree with I've always thought. In Peru, here isn't almost pure white population (8% maximum, I guess). Almost all people in Peru (that I'll call we) are Mestizos, not pure race. It would exist different percentages among amerindian (mainly Quechua-speaking tribe), white, black and asian, but always el que no tiene de Inga, tiene de Mandinga. I don't know who invented (because, spite of your sustaining, that numbers hasn't ultimate, direct, surveys-based sources) that 15% of white population, or even that 45% of amerindian population. Here are less white people and more Mestizos! TomorrowI'll give you more info about this (it's 23:00 here). Sincerely, CUADRADO ORTIZ, Juan Carlos Lima, Thursday, February 23, 2006.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Castizo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam(T/C) 15:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:De español y castiza produce español.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam(T/C) 15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Al Andalus. I dont understand the section on related ethnic groups. Whats up with indo europeans? Thats just a language group which covers more than half the world. What do Spaniards have in common with Slavs and Germanics??? Shouldnt the related groups be restricted to Latins (portuguese Italians etc...) and Hispanics (with whom they share language, culture, religion and strong blood ties and often family ties)...
Anyways... Have a nice day.
--Cassius80 13:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see someone has been here before me. Al andalus you are being really irritating vandalising the Spanish people page without discussion on the Discussion Page. Spaniards are not related to slavs or Germanics or hellenics and INDO EUROPEANS ARE NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP BUT A LANGUAGE GROUP!!!!!!! Where are you from and how can you be so ignorant?--Burgas00 12:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, I just reverted some vandalism to your user page. It's the same guy as above, I guess he takes his linguistics very seriously.--Cúchullaintc 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks, Al-Andalus for all your edits on that Mongoloid page: but...
I think dinstinguishing Mongoloids by skin-colour is an erroneous assumption used by non-Asians who essentially have difficulty telling them apart. We have to remember that "light skin and "dark skin" exist in ALL Asian populations (and by extension, all other human groups), and that social occupation and sex are often the real variables here: as Asians, farmers and males are typically darker than the urbanites and the females. Many people (almost always non-Asians) don't realize that Asians all have the same skin colour when they are light, it's when they tan that the skin tones look different. And so, the Vietnamese are not any "darker" than the Japanese, as they really have the same tone: yellowish-red (red-yellow-brown) when they are tanned. I find that northern Mongoloids are red when they are dark (like the Amerindians), and Southeast Asians seem to be have a "greyish" skin colour when they are tanned. So I really think we have to depend on the body structure (nose, facial hair, or something?). And among continental Mongoloids, the Hans can range from extremely light (stereotypically, the central eastern cities) to extremely dark (rural north-central Han males can have a peculiar red-purple skintone). That makes the Chinese both the lightest and the darkest skinned among the continental Mongoloids.
At least, that's how I see it. As an Asian myself, whereever people think I'm from depends completely on what I look like that particular day. I noticed that non-Asians (except for East Europeans) always think I'm Filipino, whereas Asians (and East Europeans) will think I'm Central Asian or north Asian. What do you suppose that says? Le Anh-Huy 09:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello Al-Andalus, I have seen you last changes at some “related ethnic groups” linked articles. I absolutely support this new clearly structure. However, my question to you is, why you have linked to Indo-Europeans and not to Indo-Europeans. This article already exists.
I know, unfortunately there are some “pigheads” or “stubborn people” with a limited perception. The most of them don’t allow a hypothetical ethnic relation in this topic. Don’t understand me wrong, that’s completely acceptable, but this information must be although specified on this article. Note, I only suggest some possibility that such a connection may be existed, not that it has 100% exist. That’s quite a big difference.
My suggestion to you is to link even though on Indo-Europeans. This is the next logical term in conjunction with the ethnic aspect of Indo-European. –lorn10 17:38, 09. April 2006 (CET)
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Not sure why you removed the US group there, if its valid feel free to re-remove but it seemed fairly valid to keep in there to me. Cheers -- Tawker 07:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Its re this diff - I noticed a large removal without any edit summary reason, seeing how you're not exactly a new user I thought I'd ask what was going on. Did I seriously post this on your user page, I swore it was your talk, oops -- Tawker 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I hit rollback, hence it was restored. With your explaination, feel free to remove the content when you make the subarticle, please just make a note of it on its talk page :) -- Tawker 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
License tagging for Image:Map-Hispanic countries.pngedit
Thanks for uploading Image:Map-Hispanic countries.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Consensus now says that the demographics' section of this article should be stay as the original, so please do not modify it. If want to discuss things you can do it at Talk:Demographics of Argentina. Thanks. —This We'll Defend (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I second to that suggestion. Please respect consensus. --OneEuropeanHeart 16:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, you must stop changing the article to a disruptive, one-side POV bias. I watched the history of that page, and in no ocassion I saw any co-operative behaviour from your side, even when you have been warned about that. Also, please don't remove important anti-vandalism information from your talk page as you did here, that kind of edits only makes things worst.
In Corrientes the only official language is Spanish; Guaraní has a semi-privileged stance because it's de jure co-official, but its use it's not regulated, not common, and nevertheless irrelevant for an article called "Demographics of Argentina".
Consensus, at least in Talk:Demographics of Argentina, seems to be ignored only by you. If you didn't noticed before, we agree on keeping away the demographics on Argentina and focus on the main article, as with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and common procedures.
Of course I contributed to the discussion, and your denial clearly remarks your lack of community service; maybe a look to the history page will refresh your mind.
Don't lie in such a blatant form on my talk page saying that I deleted information, or I'll start doing the same on yours. The genetic analysis are still on the article, as with all UBA's studies. --OneEuropeanHeart 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also don't delete other user's comments as you did on Talk:Argentina, that kind of edits can easily earn you a permanent block. --OneEuropeanHeart 17:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
So? Your law doesn't prove anything, exactly because it's the only official regulation about that. Homever, I'm not against the inclusion of that information, note that the title says "Demographics of Argentina", and not "Language".
Regarding your edits on Talk:Argentina, you seem to be strangely confused with Wikipedia's policy. Whatever the reason, never delete other user's comments, ok? Only in obvious cases of vandalism comments can be removed. --OneEuropeanHeart 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I only think we must all calm down a bit and stop reverting changes, this applies also for you. I really doubt that OneEuropeanHeart has any bias against you or the articles, he's our finest contibutors here. BTW, why are you acussing me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? --Darklegions 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
WHAT???!!! Listen guy, I don't care what are you thinking about or want to do, but calm down and stop your mafiosi-like comments, or I'll personally request intervention on this. --Darklegions 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the compromise. I do believe it may be good to have it as an aside in the language section instead of on the infobox. I still thinks that is relatively irrelevant to the country article, but I can live with that.
Regarding the changes, I would suggest you ask in WP:ANI for an admin (other than me) to invervene either protecting the page temporarily or simply helping you take this to WP:RFC. Check WP:DR before doing anything, it'll give you an idea of your avenues.
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --OneEuropeanHeart 00:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --OneEuropeanHeart 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Please respect the consensus reached on Talk:Demographics of Argentina. You have been warned several times before, so behavior like this can earn you a permanent block without further notice. Thanks. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --OneEuropeanHeart 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --OneEuropeanHeart 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"By who? By you and some sock puppets." Stop accussing me and other wikipedians for your blatant conspiracy theories. That's the answer from a guy who is continuosly reverting other users' contributions with his POV and original research statements, when he actually must discuss things before doing anything. How nice.
"When all talks and consensus actually affirm against your intentions of modifications/deletions". It's fairly clear that you have not the behaviour, or even the intention, to see what's happening at Talk:Demographics of Argentina. If you didn't noticed before, a mininum of 4 (four) users are against your pseudoscientific race theories, exactly because they're clearly wrong, biased, and even ridiculous.
"And haven't acutally particiaped in the talks". As stated before, I have participated (not particiaped) two times in Talk:Demographics of Argentina, showing my interest in the article and my personal point of view about this. I don't claim or produce any original research material, can't you do the same?
"It was again Spaniards and Italians together accounted for 80% of all the new European immigrants to Argentina". Please, don't assume that your statement is true without citing sources, another Wikipedia's policy that is seems that you don't know.
Finally, I'd like to note that you violated at least 8 official guidelines (WP:BRD, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NPA, WP:EQ, WP:HAR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV), and now you're considered a vandal. My patience is completely lost, just revert one time more and you'll blocked. --OneEuropeanHeart 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Al-Andalus, I agree with you in some of your assertions but you can't treat other editors as you've been doing. Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry is very serious, and in this case, it's also (frankly) ridiculous. State your facts and stick to them only. —Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Métis woman.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Isabel preysler.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Lalaine Vergara.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Jews of Iraq.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pharos 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I generally like your edits which are better sourced and more clear except for a few things:
You make it seem that lower class Chileans are mainly Indian, Middle Class are half half and higher class are mainly Spanish. This is not the case. Middle class Chileans are of mainly Spanish origin as are most those of lower class. I would like to see a source for the figure of 43% Indian admixture. Your language also denotes and intent to maximise the Indian origin of Chileans? Why is this?--Burgas00 10:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Serdarortaç.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 00:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Koizumi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I posted a question at the Talk:Hilario Davide, Jr. regarding the former chief justice’s surname. I figured I should be directing this question to you given that it is you who listed “Davide” among the surnames recommended by the Catálogo. —Lagalag 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry but the 3 revert rule clearly specifies that a revert is "undoing another editors work", it doesn't matter if you think my original revert was unjustified, it does not give you the right to overstep the 3RR. Besides, I could just as easily argue that you were adding obviously unacceptable pov to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk
Actually I only reverted two times. You reverted many more than three times, go look at WP:3RR, and actually get some sense of what you are talking about before you start looking even more silly.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Supadawg (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Al-Andalus, please do not revert without providing discussion or justifications. Please do not insert anti-White POV into the article, including obscure information that belongs in controversial Whiteness Studies. Thanks.Yukirat 01:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 07:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Al Andalus is is violation of 3RR and Vandalism. Can someone please investigate? SEE ALSO ABOVE at 3RR at Mizrahi Jews
Yukirat 08:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Swanson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Aussiepride.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If you're seriously suggesting adding Jewish Americans to some of the other templates, then I'm actually for it. "Jewish" is definitely an ethnicity and culture, and we can and should be inclusive here - so since there are Jewish communities in almost every part of the world - it may actually be a good idea to add that page to the other templates. Mad Jack 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
As for Muslims, that definitely is not an ethnicity - that's why one can't really make the argument that it should be in every single template. Mad Jack 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Rosario Salazar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
My response to something excellent you wrote on Talk:Jewedit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As much as I disaprove of Iran (or any country on earth) developing and using nuclear weapons, it's interesting that Iran is the country which today is most fear-mongered and deamonised as a threat to Israel and Jews (where all types of faux news are disseminated to disparage it), yet, besides Israel, it is the country with the largest Jewish population in the Middle East; a country whose laws require Iranian Jews participate and be represented in the country's parliament; a country whose Islamic leaders hold friendly enounters with its Jewish leaders; a country which holds cultural exchange programmes sending Iranian Jewish groups abroad representing Iran; a country which has requested its dispora Jewish Iranian population return to help develop their country; a country whose Jewish population supports their governments persuit of nuclear enrichment for peacful purposes (ie. to generate nuclear power); a country whose Ayatolla during WWII argued to German Nazis that Iranian Jews were IRANIANS above all else and that the Iranian Jews in European countries for studies or business be spared (and then even provided fake passports to even save some non-Iranian Jews).
Unlike they did to other Mizrahim, the sabotaging European Zionists didn't get the chance to throw bombs at Iranian Jews and create the frenzy of emigration as done to Iraqi Jews. Most emigration from Iran came after the Islamic Revolution of Iran (which like all forms of Islamism I attribute as an unfortunate cause and effect to European Zionism and the creation of Israel), yet even after this, still Jews remain in Iran.
And as much as we all dislike the current Iranian president (I personally don't like him either, a bit too radical for me), neither he nor Iran can honestly be labelled anti-semitic, even after calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He did not say Jews should be wiped out, but the unethical morally-bankrupt political entity that is the modern State of Israel. That the modern State of Israel believes itself to be the political representative of world Jewry is another thing, but this is a problem to be dealt with by those who cannot distinguish between Israel and Jews, or who cannot distinguish (or worse, those who deliberately blur) the distinction that should be made between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Al-Andalus 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
My Response -- I think it's safe to say that Iran has no problem allowing Jews to live and work in their country, they just will not allow them to gain a disproportionately prominent influence in governmental and financial fields because they are 'foreigners,' i.e. not ethnic Iranians and above all not Muslims. As you say, they allow them to stay (or let them in) to help with education, computer technology, energy, and science, and to help 'modernize' the country; these Iranian Jews can help VERY MUCH because they are (1) often very educated; and because they are (2) basically forced to assimilate in to mainstream Iranian society (in order to help and contribute to Iranian [and not just Jewish-Iranian] society) or else they will be forced to emigrate for being too 'exclusive' and 'clannish.' This 'forced assimilation' is, if you ask me, good for everyone involved because it lets these Jews help the entire society rather than just improving a separate Jewish-Iranian society. This is important because around the World, in basically whatever country they live in, Jews are and have always been 'a people set apart.' This was often self-imposed segregation, but also sometimes imposed by the larger society (as in the Jewish ghettos found in many manjor European cities, or the Shtetls of Eastern Europe). So, it seems that by reading Al-Andalus, Iranian Jews are either forced to assimilate and contribute to the ENTIRE society or they are forced to leave the country. --172.132.243.219 07:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Please do not use wordds in an edit summary like "revert vandal" when it is not vandalism that is occuring, but someone with a different version of the page. What's more, you are once again guilty of the 3RR violation on this page. Please assume good faith, and again, do not use the term vandalism just because someone has reverted your edits. Talk issues out on the talk page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
You will notice that the only thing the user (and all his associated IPs) does to the article in question is blank a lot of content, removes all sources, while at the same time introduces his unsourced nonsense. By all means, that accounts to vandalism as stated by WP. Also, he has been warned various times by other users and/or admins on his IP's talk pages to that vandalism, and has been warned that it constitutes vandalism, and has been warned from making racist, anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-arab, anti-amerindian, personal attacks on users talk pages. Al-Andalus 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
You will notice I addressed some of his concerns above in the section of my talk page - TE EXPLICO. It responds to this person's username, and also gives a link to some comments I made on the IP address. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
BTW, I apologize if this user is a vandal, and you were reverting genuine vandalism. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have lodged a 3RR report on User:Antarcticwik with diffs regarding his hate edits on Andalusia. Maybe you should consider adding some others on other articles he is edit-warring upon too. Regards, Asteriontalk 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Dejate de vandalizar los artìculos sobre mí país, al parecer eres un enfermo lleno de resentimiento y rencor por el tremendo progreso que Chile ha tenido en todos los aspectos. No se si eres argentino , peruano, español o filipino, lo unico que sé, es que eres un enemigo de Chile, lleno de resentimiento e ignorancia que intenta cambiar la realidad a través de wikipedia. Pero eso es imposible Vandaluz.
Antarcticwik 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
o te da envidia que los filipinos solo tengan de europeos los nombres, y tratas de proyectar tu mestiza realidad a paises homogeneos, occidentales y exitosos como Chile.Reply
Stop vandalising and erasing information on the Hispanic page. It seems that you are having a lot of problems with other users for the same reason: Erasing information = Vandalism. Racism and bias can take many strange forms. It is difficult to me to figure out what motivates your continuous erasing of some information.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Even if your content is justified, it's better to discuss changes on the talk page (or let other members of the community handle it). I've had to block you for 31 hours for your 3RR violation on Chile. Khoikhoi 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Al-Andalus,
I completely understand where you're coming from. You have to understnad, however, that there's a right way and wrong way to handle these types of situations. Take for example, this. After you tried to talk with him, is there anything you could've done after that? Why not request page protection at WP:RPP? When he made those disgusting insults at you, did you report them to anyone? In the future try WP:PAIN. To be hoenst, you remind me of myself awhile back. When I encountered a POV warrior, the most I did to stop it was just revert—and I tried to handle everything by myself. I got into many edit wars with the (now banned) user -Inanna-, and it certainly made my block log larger. But I eventually learned my lesson and asked other users for help.
This brings me to my next point: you can call Antarcticwik an edit warrior, a tendentious editor, or even a troll, but when WP:3RR says the exception is "obvious vandalism", it means obvious vandalism. While Antarcticwik's deletion of sourced information violates WP:V, his reverts cannot be called vandalism for the simple reason that he most likely believes that he was improving the article. A true vandal would never think that. Even though he's inserting racist, unsourced bullshit—all the examples you cited still prove my point that this is a content dispute—even though you're dealing with a problem editor. If you don't belive me try reporting him at WP:AIV.
Incidentially, I've just blocked him for 24 hours (and indef. blocked his sockpuppet) thanks to the evidence provided by Patstuart. I've also added all the pages you mentioned to my watchlist, and if you ever need me to protect them, I promise you I will. Adios, Khoikhoi 05:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Goddamnit Al-Andalus, stop making minor edits on my talk page! Use the preview button, thank you very much. Khoikhoi 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Anyways, I see what you mean. Maybe if things don't get resolved sooner than you'd like them to, you could try mediation? Just a thought. Khoikhoi 04:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Al-Andalus/Archive 1, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile.
Gt 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
