User talk:SamEV/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, SamEV/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox June 30, 2005 14:14 (UTC)

Latin nationalism[edit]

The article Latin nationalism clearly does not meet the nonsense criterion for speedy deletion. Please stop tagging it as such. Please be aware of our policies on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and the three revert limit. Thanks, Gwernol 03:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multiracial[edit]

okay. i know that your edits are done with best interest in mind, but because Wikipedia editors, whether correctly or not, can't decide who is biracial or not. I.e. if we have a list of biracial/multiracial people, it needs to have people on it who have been described as bi/multi-racial in a reliable source. it is not up to us to decide what a race is, if we have a source, we should list it. Colorfulharp233 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial (Sean Paul Joseph)[edit]

Ok if Cuban is not the race we should put on Wikipedia, then what can we put? Hispanic? I see Rosario listed as Afro-Cuban, what's the difference? Georgia Peachez 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Georgia Peachez 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. SamEV 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer[edit]

You can find a detailed answer at my talk page. Lincher 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What footnotes are for[edit]

Footnotes are for references (books, aticles, websites), or short explanatory notes, not paragraphs. See Wikipedia:Footnotes Spylab 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab, I quote from the guideline:

"Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail."

Greater "detail", it reads. It says nothing about keeping it shorter than a paragraph, as you claim. (How suitably can someone comment if they're limited to one sentence?) It continues:

"Footnotes are also often used to cite references which are relevant to a text. Citation of sources is important in supporting Verifiability, a key aspect of Wikipedia."

"Footnotes are also often used to cite references..." (my emphasis). IOW, it is not their exclusive use.

I'm open to suggestions that you may have, but my footnotes are compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. SamEV 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the article History of the Dominican Republic[edit]

Hi there Sam. I'm removing a section from the article History of the Dominican Republic, a change which you have previously reverted. I just wanted to let you know why the section is problematic. The United Nations did not exist in 1502 and could thus not have offered intervention, as stated in the removed section. Neither did Amnesty International, gas chambers and electric chairs. The section appears to be a hoax. Best, Afv2006 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I'd reverted it with my edit. It's definitely vandalism. SamEV 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes things slip back in when vandalism is reverted. Just letting you know, in case this section comes back so that more eyes are on it. By the way, you do great work patrolling articles for vandalism! Much appreciated. Cheers, Afv2006 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, and thanks again. SamEV 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Hispanic (pictures)[edit]

Although I'd like to put more than one picture, the article isn't very long -as you know- ...one picture is sufficient for the space. I chose Alexis Bledel because she's the perfect example of a White Hispanic...although her parents are White Latin Americans (you know the rules)...she was born in Texas, and is a part of the American mainstream media...(just to let you know why I put her picture.) If you'd like to add a another go ahead...no one can stop you. Let's just keep the article clean looking. --Cali567 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just shrink the pic size. SamEV 04:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America American[edit]

I don't understand why you co-signed on such a obviously non-sensical term. Could you please explain to me the merits of this term. It seems to be a term that was just made up as there seems to be no history of it and cannot be authenticated.EDGARR 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It serves as a kind of reference. People can see how "Latino" deviates from the usual naming pattern of US ethnonyms. It's not being put forward as the "correct" term, only as a disregarded alternative. You should notice that the conditional is used ("would be"), though I think that even the present tense can convey this info. SamEV 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However it evades the fact that Latino's are Latin and the far more reasonable term is simply Latin Americans. Which is the term more commonly used as opposed to Latin American American. So I'll add that they can also be called Latin Americans as this is also the case.

I propose that you stop edit warring. Latin American properly belongs to Latin America. Latino has an official definition from the US Bureau of the Census. SamEV 07:10, 2 March 2007

I am not edit warring Iam simply stating a truth, and you continue to remove what I state as if you are the only one with a legal right to state the facts. This is an open encyclopedia and the truth is that Latinos are Latin and can be referred to as Latin Americans which sounds more appropriate than Latin American Americans. It is you who are edit warring and deleting what I state. By the way a criollo is a person of Spanish descent born outside of Spain, not necessarily born in the U.S.EDGARR 07:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand that "Latin American" refers to someone in Latin America? There is, FYI, a place called "Latin America". Two words, indivisible. The "American" in "Latin American" isn't dropped just b/c you say so. (Don't be fooled by "Latino", as it is a different kind of construction). Someone from Kansas City is not a Latin American, whether you like it or not, as Kansas City is not in Latin America. Do you not understand that if a US-born and -bred person whose parents are from Latin America is referred to as a "Latin American" it denies that American of an ethnonym that identifies him/her with his/her own country? If you want to discuss the use of "American" as a US demonym, go to the appropriate page. This is not it. SamEV 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See Criollo (people) SamEV 08:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, of course I understand that there is a place called Latin America. ‘Latinos’ or ‘Latin Americans’ by definition are 'Latin. '(Without having to use the suffix American. So I'm not just dropping the American part because I say so. I'm merely stating that they can also be referred to as Latin’s. (As per Merriam Webster and other authorititive references). And as Latin’s living in the U.S. as citizens, they can be referred to as Latin Americans. (Americans referring in this instance to the U.S. portion of the Americas). It was not me but you who began the article referring to the suffix 'Americans' in the article so telling me I'm not on the appropriate page would be Inappropriate. Is it possible you are anti-Latin or Anti-Hispanic and are working to keep them from assimilating. Why are you against the term Latin, is it too easy? If someone writes something you disagree with what gives you the right to consistently delete their contributions and then accuse them of vandalizing. Is this your personal encyclopedia? Or is it an open encyclopedia of the people. EDGARR 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More detail...[edit]

I don't think that deleting "prominent people" in an article having to do with an ethnic group/s is really that huge of a deal. No one else has these people listed on the article's page...and about deleting the comparison...it's quite irritating to see the Philipines and Latin America compared and contrasted to one another so. Let each have it's own article...no comparisons...

Food for thought... SamEV 08:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not vandalise articles[edit]

This is your only warning. The next time you vandalise one drop rule, you will be blocked from editing. Influencey 09:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you be more careful about throwing around accusations of vandalism. SamEV 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spain/American Revolution[edit]

I would be interested to know if there is any current website or other on-line resource which talks about Spain's contribution to the American Revolution - do you know of any? EspanaViva 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - excellent! ¡Muchísimas gracias! EspanaViva 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. Yo estoy a su disposición para ayudar, más que nada con el lenguaje, que es el area mas apta para mí. SamEV 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latino[edit]

I think the Latino article's quality has improved immensely. I hope future editors work within the articule's current framework and don't re-architect it without good cause. danedouard00 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Please keep it on your watch list. SamEV 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack[edit]

Please do not use vandalism revert technology to promote your POV. This edit was a clearly a personal attack against me when I did a good faith edit. This is unacceptable, SqueakBox 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: what vandalism revert tech? I'm not terribly familiar with the tech side of Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure I used no such thing. I did not even mark the edit as vandalism. I did mark it as a revert. Is that such a no-no? SamEV 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War at Spanish language[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Spanish language. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Spanish language).

--Asterion^talk 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried talking to them and it was useless. They say that even the Belize Census is not a reliable source about languages in Belize! That's unacceptable. I'd like to find out what Wikipedia is made of and get a simple decision in this dispute: who's right?

I'll abide by the ruling. SamEV 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish is spoken in Belize but that the fact that it isnt an official language and nor is it the primary language of the people should be added. I am happy to include Andorra and Belize but at the end along with the US. Surely you agree these 3 countries are NOT like Honduras, Guatemala, etc wehere Spanish is the dominanat language. Your edit makes it look as if Spanish is the language of Belize etc which I think is wrong. So I am not rejecting your sources personally, SqueakBox 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does such info have to fitted in that box? You seem to terribly underestimate the intelligence of the readers. You think that just b/c a country is listed up there that automatically means that's all that's spoken there. Maybe that's how YOU think, but why project it onto others? Are the caveats you want found in other languages' infoboxes? Why just Spanish? What's your agenda? SamEV 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

Hi, i found a new source for the amount of Chinese in Nicaragua, but i am not to sure if it is reliable, i was hoping you would help me out and check it [1]. I have seen no definite source for the claim of 8,000 (all asians) but that webpage states there are 12,000, problem is that it only mentions the population of Chinese and not any other Asian ethnicity. LaNicoya 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can use it.

For more definitive sources, try emailing the Chinese embassies in Managua and in Washington. Even more, be bold and email the Chinese foreign ministry in Beijing! All of them might have figures about people of Chinese descent in Nicaragua and in other countries. SamEV 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake vandalism claims[edit]

Dont make fake vandalism claims which you know to be false. Thankyou, SqueakBox 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing false about them. You are reverting accurate information from reliable sources, properly presented, and misrepresenting it deliberately. SamEV 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are in the wrong here. Do not ever again make false claims of vandalism in edit summaries. Read WP:Vandal regarding what is and what is not vandalism.--Jersey Devil 21:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe he's guilty of "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages", which is called vandalism in the policy. As I my edits are legitimate and he keeps reverting them ... Seems like he's trying to get away with murder. Well, not trying, seems like he's succeeding. SamEV 21:50, 28 March 2007 (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.

Viridae ^Talk 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 24.110.102.10 lifted or expired. Request handled by: John Reaves (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]