User talk:Cali567

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cali567, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! --Rockero 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RE: War over ethnic relations

Hi cali just read your message and have had a look at the new developments on the Filipino page. added a few comments.

[edit] White Hispanic

I think you should add other pics. It seems unfair to have one person be the representative of an entire group. SamEV 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me add: Especially one so young, just trying to make it in Hollywood (doing well so far). Why burden her, and her alone, in some article about race? Let's spread out this burden is what I'm saying. Find a pic of someone else and then put them back, together. Or leave the article pic-less. SamEV 04:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mestizo

Please explain your last edit in more detail. SamEV 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanics and Filipinos

What do you mean 2% of Filipinos are related to Hispanics? I am not referring to genetics or descent, I am refering to ethnicity or culture. Over 80% of Filipinos are Lowland Christians. These are the groups which have Hispanic influence. I think you are confusing terms. I hope this comment ends that confusion. Thanks. --Chris S. 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing race and ethnicity. The two are not the same. I strongly agree with you that 2% or 3% (or whatever minute percentage) of Filipinos are genetically related to Spaniards. However, that is not the issue here. The Filipino people article is an article about an ethnic group (please look up the article) and not a race. The concept of ethnicity is not merely restricted to genetics and ideas about race, but it also includes culture, language, religion, a common history, etc.

Also, neither is Hispanic a racial term. It is a cultural/ethnic term. Hispanics covers descendants of Europeans, African slaves, Native Americans, and everybody else in between. The ex-president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori (he has Japanese parents) is even Hispanic. Hispanics are not monolithic as you believe them to be.

When the Spaniards colonized the Philippine archipelago for over three hundred years, they radically changed many of the country's ethnic groups. The Tagalog of today is not the Tagalog of yesterday. The Visayan of today is not the Visayan of yesterday. Tagalogs, Visayans, Ilocanos, Bicolanos, etc. have had their culture dramatically altered by those three crucial centuries. Our culture is more Hispanic. Our brand of Roman Catholicism is Hispanic. Our traditional dress is Spanish. Our food has Hispanic influence. Most of our surnames are Spanish. Our languages have thousands of Spanish words. Our festivals are Hispanic. Our music is Spanish. And Spanish was the official language of the Philippines until 1973. I could go on.

Your analogy of Americans being Roman is flawed. For one thing, the Romans never conquered the United States. A better analogy would be the British being related to Americans via culture. I hope you understand now. Thanks. --Chris S. 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, be mindful of the three-revert rule (I am subject to it too, so I can't rv at the moment). Second, sign your name by typing in ~~~~.

If you look back at the ethnic group page, you will find "Ethnic groups are also often united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, ritualistic, or religious traits." Because Filipinos and Hispanics overwhelmingly share many of those common traits, and in fact, they come from a common source, they are considered related.

You said "Most Filipinos WANT to be associated with Hispanics...and that is why it is on that page as a related ethnic group...no other reason." Oh, come on now, don't be silly. I am not putting it there because I want to be related to Hispanics. I am merely stating a fact, nothing more. We have a common history with many Latin American countries.

You write "So, why in the U.S. are the various Latin American ethnic groups plus the Spanish typically collectivized as "Hispanics"...and Filipinos are not??? Because they are not!" You are implying that the I believe that Filipinos should be listed as Hispanics. That is far from the truth. There are many Filipinos who believe they are Hispanic, and I am not one of them; I am vehemently opposed to this labeling. However, this does not mean that I know that we are related to them.

You wrote "Why was it illegal for Filipinos in the 1800's to marry Whites (of German or Mexican extraction)???" You mean in the early 20th century. Most Filipinos did not come to the Philippines until then. Are you and I reading the same Filipino history book? ;-) --Chris S. 05:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filipino people

Please read WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOT. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 06:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the English Wikipedia, every contribution you or I make, which means any statement we write, must be properly supported by a reference or citation per WP:V and WP:CITE. All Wikipedians subscribe to these policies, like it is our bible! It is simply the policy in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, it will be subject to WP:NOT. You can respond in my talk page if these clearly written response of mine is still unclear and I will spell it out again for you. Okey? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Which goes without saying that for as long as your statement/s is not properly cited, especially for "mature articles," new contributions will be reverted, until the proper citation is provided. gets mo? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
To add, provide a proper reference or citation to your statements and I will be happy to let your contribution stay in the article. I hope you learned something today. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: learned something

hahahaha! I did not even think nor do I care if Filipinos are not related to Hispanics. I am just pointing the Wikipedia policies that apply to your edit/s. hehehe As for my WL? it couldn't be better! While my RL is very outstanding! I live in a wonderful world! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pinay06"

[edit] A reply from Javier Ruescas

Javier Ruescas of Spain asked me to send the following message to you.

A bunch of nonsense.....


Yes, Javier Ruescas is real (as if it mattered...). He is a member of Círculo Hispano-Filipino (Hispanic-Filipino circle). Come on over to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hispanofilipino/ and you can participate. I've been forwarding your comments and mine to that group, so they already know you. We're a friendly bunch. Sometimes. lol. :-) --Chris S. 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Oh, and by the way the reason that I told you to sign your name correctly is because when you sign your name, it is not coming out as a clickable link. Just text. --Chris S. 04:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Warning

By the way, I saw your comment about me in BrendelSignature's talk page, calling me a fanatic. I'd like to remind you, no personal attacks. It is a blockable offense. So this is your first warning.

On a personal note, it is interesting that you are labeling me a fanatic. Someone at Hispanofilipino called me that, but it was because I did not believe that Filipinos should be considered Hispanic and that Spanish shouldn't be the official language. Life is lonely in the middle, apparently. ;-P --Chris S. 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

I figured it out. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences make sure you leave RAW SIGNATURE unchecked. Hope that helps. --Chris S. 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace

!Mexicans should stick together..Soory about the brown pride issue. I'm just having a bad day. Peace be with you amigo...Viva Mexico!! -- :) Ramírez 02:44 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanics in the Philippines in the article Hispanic

Sorry but, why do you remove an entire section without saying anything? What about discussing it in the talk page?

It's a fact there were Hispanics in the Philippines. I have got family in the Philippines, and they are Hispanics, and they have been there for more than 100 years, since the times when the Philippines were Spain. The fact that most of the population of the Philippines do not speak Spanish doesn't change the fact that:

  1. Spain has influenced the Philippines like nobody else: it's not just the name, it's the unity, the fact that all these islands constitute an united state, comes from the fact that they were a single administrative region inside the Spanish Empire. The culture too, and the language, check the articles Hispanic cultural legacy in the Philippines, check Filipinos of Spanish descent, check Chavacano language, check Tagalog language, check Filipino language.
  2. Instead Spain had not influenced the Philippines, they were under the control of Spain for 500 years, and there has been always an important community that, though small in number, ruled the country for 500 years. That's a fact. And that's also what was explained in the section.

So there are no reasons to remove it. And instead there were reasons, go and talk about it in the talk page, thanks. Onofre Bouvila 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey could you please stop removing or cutting the section of the Hispanics in the Philippines in the article Hispanic? I think you disagree with it because you think that the section talks about all the filipinos, but if you read it you can see it is not so: the section is not saying that all the filipino people are "hispanics": it is saying that due to the spanish possession of the Philippines, there has always been a small minority of Hispanics (from Spain, Mexico, etc) living there. And these are the "Hispanics in the Philippines" that the section talks about. Apart from this, the section also talks about the Hispanic influence in the Philippines. But you don't need to change the title from "Hispanics in the Philippines" to "Hispanic Influence in the Philippines" because indeed there were Hispanics in the Philippines, and that's what the text talks about (apart from the obvious cultural influence).
In addition, take a look at your edit: [1]. You have moved the section of the Hispanics in the Philippines in the middle of the Hispanics in the United States section, so the sections of "demographics", "history", "political trends" of the Hispanics in the United States are now in the section of Hispanics in the Philippines.
Finally, I'm not sure what is your purpose with this section, because I have seen that you have edited it twice, but you also removed it some days before (I added it again yesterday).
You have changed "Other Philippine languages, such as the Tagalog, were not entirely replaced, but received strong influences from the Spanish. New languages also originated, such as the Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole language, or the Filipino, a standardized version of the Tagalog that serves as the national language in the country (note that if the Spaniards had not conquered the islands and unified them under the same government, nowadays probably we could not be speaking of the Philippines as a single unity)" by "Other Philippine languages received influences from Spanish. A new language also originated, Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole language". I don't see the point, because the way it was before mentions more examples and explains them. So I don't really see the point of your edit. You also removed the link to "Spanish Filipinos", which I don't understand, because that is the main article for the Spaniards living in the Philippines.
Anyway, discuss it in the talk page before doing such big edits, please.
Thanks.
Onofre Bouvila 10:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey!
I see you have changed your strategy: at the beginning, you wanted to erase the section Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_Philippines, but now you are trying to include it in a wider section called "Hispanics in Asia". Well, I encourage you to add information about the Hispanics in Asia, but I do not think it is appropiate to do it in detriment of the section Hispanic#Hispanics in the Philippines. You could, for example, do a wider section called "Hispanics in Asia", and inside that section, we could introduce the actual section of Hispanics in the Philippines, along with other sections such as Hispanics in Guam, and stuff. Just like the secton Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania, which has smaller sections talking about the different peoplesfrom Spain.
But that is not your objective, right? You do not want to upgrade the article; what you want, is to dissolve the section Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_Philippines inside a wider section called "Hispanics in Asia", but without mentioning the case of the Philippines in a separate section (which is what it should be done, since it is the most important case), and you introduce sentences such as "There are small populations of Hispanics in Asia. In the Philipines, for example, only around 2% of the population is Hispanic": all in all, your aim is to mitigate the importance of the Hispanics in the Philippines.
In addition, I don't know if you even realize what you are doing in your edits. Please, check this one: [2]. You are introducing your super-section of "Hispanics in Asia" inside the section of Hispanic#Hispanics in the United States! You don't even know what are you editing, and where you are doing it.
Furthermore, this is the 3rd time I ask you to stop doing this in your talk page. It is also the umpteenth time that I ask you to discuss your edits in the topic I created for the section you are repeatedly editing: Talk:Hispanic#I_added_a_section_for_the_Hispanics_in_the_Philippines.
You should understand that the objective of the section Hispanic#Hispanics in the Philippines is not to put at the same level the Filipinos, the Spaniards and the Hispanic Americans: its objective is just to explain the history of the Hispanics in the Philippines. We are not saying that all the Filipinos are Hispanics; we are just saying that there were, and there are, Hispanics in the Philippines.
Well, in conclusion, I think this is the last time I lose my time coming here to ask you to stop it. Next time, I'll have to call an admin. Thanks Onofre Bouvila 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is your Last and final Warning!

This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . The next time you become un co-operative to your fellow wikipedia editors or erazed informations without providing valid reasons as you did to the Mexico article, Hispanics etc. I will blocked you from using wikipedia. Saludos!--Ramírez 06:00 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of informations in the Mexico article

Reply: Hey Cali567! I've got a question for you? It seems you have a hatred towards Mexicans of Filipinos descents? hey Vato! Why homes? --Ramírez72 June 14 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Americans are not related to ancient Italic people Latins

Mexican Americans are not related to ancient Italic people Latins. Please, see Ancient Italic peoples.

Latins lived in Latium in Italian Peninsula.

Spaniards are related to Iberians who lived in Iberian Peninsula. Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula were cuturally Romanized after Roman conquest of the Iberian peninsula.

Modern use of Latin is limited to linguistic-cultural groups. Please, see Latin peoples (linguistic).

[edit] Suspesion of Sockpuppetry: User:Cali567

I have nothing to be a shamed off, I am doing my job as Wikipatroler to eliminate suspected Users who use sockpuppetry identities. I be will monitoring your edit actions, including User talk:Al-Andalus and User:C.Kent87 who might be used by the same person. -- Ramírez 17:12 July 10, 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply: To, User:Cali567! You are a suspected sock puppet user who is believed to be using various identities including User talk:Al-Andalus, User:C.Kent87 and User:68.110.8.21. My job is to eliminate users who violates the Wikipedia's terms and regulations on sock puppetry issue. No matter what your opinions of me, which i don't care, I will continue to monitor your edit actions including many others. --Ramírez July 11, 2007 (UTC)