User talk:Calendar2014

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Calendar2014, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sicani[edit]

Hi. Re your additions to Sicily [1]: Such statements really need a confirmation and a citation from a reliable source, preferrably a book or a scholarly journal. Our article Sicani basically confirms that their origin is unknown, but does not suggest Libya as a proposed solution by any scholar. This book by Birnbaum [2] attributes the African origin theory to Rafaele Solarino, but he lived in 1885, we need something fresher than that. Thus, I reverted your additions until you provide a source for that thesis. No such user (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your explanation as to why you deleted my addition. I have sources, but I have a feeling that if I added them, it would still get deleted. To me, either way it is an African origin theory, as they would have had to have come from Africa even if they "originated" in the Iberian peninsula. Thanks for responding kindly, though. It is much appreciated. Calendar2014 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm ChamithN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, New York City, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York[edit]

You recently added information to article New York City along with a reference.But sadly that source seems like a dead link.I checked your link numerous times and all I get is an error.I'll ask other editors to check your link.If it is a dead link your edits will be reverted.Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia--Chamith (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Calendar2014. You have new messages at ChamithN's talk page.
Message added 17:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Chamith (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Americans[edit]

Please stop adding this section as you did [3]. This violates WP:SYNTHESIS. If you think it should be included, seek and achieve consensus at Talk:Mexican Americans before attempting to add it again. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mexican Americans. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mexican Americans. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SQGibbon (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to add to this; if you revert and re-add that section again, you will be reported for edit warring and it is highly likely an administrator might decide to block you. I strongly suggest you work towards consensus on the talk page rather than behave as you have been doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, it's been almost a year since I viewed this talk page. I apologize if I violated any rules here. I am still pretty new to this. However, I strongly disagree that these statistics accurately represent intermarriage amongst Mexican Americans, specifically amongst Mexican American females. In my experience, and I am not just talking about local but rather nationwide, intermarriage between Mexican American females and White non-Hispanic males is not common at all. What is common, on the other hand, are "intermarriages" (I used quotation marks because a lot of these seem to be relationships where the couple isn't necessarily married) between Mexican American females and Black non-Hispanic males. Where I live, I see it on an almost daily basis and I know that this is not uncommon in many other parts of the country, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs)

Calendar2014, please sign your posts in the future by way of adding "~~~~" to the end of your posts. It helps us to understand who said what.
While your personal experiences carry a lot of gravity for you (such personal experiences do for anyone), we can't verify them. Wikipedia depends upon what we can verify. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Whether I think it's true or not is irrelevant. Whether you think it is true or not is irrelevant. What matters is what we can verify using reliable sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Americans[edit]

Hammersoft, I understand what you are saying. Not just mine, but the anecdotal evidence of many others would indicate that I am correct and that these statistics are misleading. However, since the U.S. Census Bureau and the Pew Research Center seem to be the only major organizations that carry out such "studies" and they both seem to concord about the results, it would make it difficult to find any study that would be considered valid enough to post on here, so I probably will not even try with that. That said, given that these statistics are very old (from over 17 years ago now) and that things can indeed change quite a bit in that time frame, especially given the ethnic demographics of many Mexican American neighborhoods and public schools in cities across the country, I feel that to be fair these statistics should be removed from this page, as they may no longer (if they ever did) accurately represent Mexican American intermarriage. Calendar2014 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would get consensus on the talk page first. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Americans[edit]

Thanks, Hammersoft. I will attempt to do so. Calendar2014 (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican American "Intermarriage"[edit]

Hammersoft, I want to thank you again for helping me out on here. I have petitioned to get those "intermarriage" statistics off of the Mexican American page because, believe me, they in no way reflect the true reality of intermixing between Mexican Americans and non-Mexican Americans, specifically between Mexican American females and non-Mexican American males. It is unfortunate that those very old and misleading statistics are still on there. Please see my arguments on there. I don't know what else I can do to get those statistics off of there, but at least please let me plead my case to you.

First of all, I understand your argument that where I live does not necessarily represent what has been and is happening everywhere else in the country. But I do strongly believe that in this case it does. My in-person experiences where I live and across the country as well as observations on sources of media such as television (dating shows, court shows, couples filmed on various shows), the internet and even newspaper photos tell me that intermixing (not necessarily marriages) between females of Mexican American descent and males of black non-Hispanic descent have been on a sharp rise and are incredibly common now, much more so than intermixing between females of Mexican American descent and males of white non-Hispanic descent. If you don't believe me, please do research on the internet about this. Do a search on Bing with the words "White Mexican couples" and you will end up receiving many results with black male Mexican American female pairs instead, particularly on image searches. If those statistics reflect reality, that shouldn't happen.

There are seemingly endless articles on the "secret relationship" between Mexican Americans and African Americans, as well as threads and articles talking about the "blaxican" identity, people who are a result of these relationships. People such as scholar George Sanchez have written articles about this. There are many postings, articles included, from Mexican American females talking about how they prefer to be with black men. There are many, many, many members of the web site Black Planet that are Latina, specifically of Mexican descent and I imagine many on dating sites intended for African Americans, such as Black People Meet. I used to read the message boards for migente.com, a site intended for Latinos, but with many black non-Hispanic male members, and there would be postings by black females complaining about seeing so many of these couples. I remember one specifically from Southern California who was especially angry. There used to be a tv show called "Moral Court" and I remember a specific case where an African American male was taking his African American female relative to court for harassment towards him and his Mexican American female partner about this.

Look at the Wikipedia page for "List of Mexican Americans". Many of the people who have a Mexican American mother and white non-Hispanic father were born in the 1970s, 60s, 50s or much earlier. Many of the newest additions where the father was not of Mexican on the other hand, have a black non-Hispanic father, particularly in sports such as baseball, football, basketball and musicians. All of these were born more recently, in the late 1970s, 80s and 90s. From my searches on match.com over the years, it is clear that people of mixed black non-Hispanic and Mexican ancestry are increasingly more common. Also, search for "Hispanic/Latino" on that site in any area heavily populated my Mexican Americans, especially those with a large black population as well, such as Houston, Dallas, Milwaukee, Chicago, Los Angeles (especially South Central Los Angeles in particular), Detroit, Oakland or Atlanta and you will find that the darker and more indigenous looking the Mexican American female, the more likely she is to have "Black/African" only or "Black/African" and "Hispanic/Latino" only for who they are looking for. They are usually looking for black males only, though, often further implied by described interests in Black American culture (books, tv shows, organizations, etc.) They are often young, with no more than a high school education and with kids. When their photos include their kids, they often obviously had them with a black male. This even happens in small towns without large black populations that are primarily white. It was featured on the PBS series "America by the Numbers" by Maria Hinojosa a few years back. Again, if those statistics reflect reality, none of this should be the case.

I have lived in a city with a pretty substantial sized Mexican American population and a large black non-Hispanic population my whole life. I have seen these couples (including implications of it through bi-racial children) all over the city and in the past year have seen a sharp increase of them in my neighborhood. There really isn't a direction I can walk in in my neighborhood where I haven't seen this and yet this used to be a primarily white non-Hispanic and Hispanic neighborhood. Demographic trends in neighborhoods, schools and work places across the country, including my city, strongly indicate that these are now the most common relationships between Mexican American females and non-Mexican origin males. I have an enormous mountain of evidence indicating this that I haven't even mentioned. It comes up in the most seemingly unlikely of places on the internet (such as message boards), even when I am not searching for it. I really don't know what else I can do or say to convince you and others on Wikipedia that I am correct about this and that those statistics need to be removed immediately. Calendar2014 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nick Stellino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sicilian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]