Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Afghanistan is located in the center of Asia"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh if only every Wikipedian did...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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