User talk:Cali567

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mestizo

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

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)[reply]

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)

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).

Sup mate

Dude I removed your picture from the Mexico article because if we include it then we would have to include another picture of indigenous peoples plus the current one that's be 3 pics and the section is too small to support 3 pictures, I was gonna move your picture to the white mexican article but I see that it's already there, well that's it, cheers.

P.D. Hablas español? Supaman89 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Weitz

{{subst: Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.|Chris Weitz}} A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. SpinningSpark 11:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Argentine American Article

Have you even read the source? You are saying because there are people with indigenous genetics then they are mestizo. No. Just because they have indigenous genetics that does not mean most Argentines are not mestizo, like you are trying to claim in the Argentine American article. Its just like I said in Talk:Argentina, in the US, if a White American that has 1% African genetics that does not make that person multiracial. So why in your opinion that if people who are either probably 10~1% indigenous are mestizo or castizo? Read your source well, it says most Argentines have probably one indigenous ancestor. This is why I delete your info because you are outright lying claiming most Argentines are mestizo and castizo.

Also, if you look at Argentine Americans, not Argentine of Argentina, in the census they label themselves as White Hispanic. This information doesn't really have any importance in Argentine American, just leave it in it own personal section in Demographics of Argentina. Also, most Argentines will focus more on there immigrant ancestors. So why put this in this article, and place it in every section that mentions the European Immigration, like what you did in Demographics of Argentina? Lehoiberri (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again with your "Argentines are Mesizo". Again no there not. Like I said, again, if a White American is 10~1% African that does not make the person Biracial. If you obliviously don't know, Argentines refer to there immigrant ancestors as Grandparents or great-grandparents, because if you look the generation they came should be around that. Lets say an immigrant marries an colonial resident who is mesitzo. There child is Castizo, then that child gets married with a person of white ancestry, then there child is now white in the Latin American Caste system.

This is my problem about this issue, people like you will say Argentines are Mestizo, but they are not. If you look at the research say Argentines have at least 1 inginous ancestor, that would make most Argentines around 10~1% indigenous. And looking by the Latin American Caste system, Argentines are technically white. And also, no one is trying to make Argentina as a Nordic country. Argentina is a mixture of Spain and Italy. Most Argentines are Spanish and/or Italian descent. And if you don't know, Spanish and Italians are not the lightest White people, especially Southern Spaniards and Southern Italians. Argentina's Italian descendants are predominantly Southern Italian.

And since you mention about myself, I don't look like your typical Hispanic since I have light brown hair, blue eyes, and I am really pale. Many people think I am a White American. Here in the US, the stereotypical Hispanic image is a mestizo person with black curly hair, dark brown eyes, and brown skin. I know that Hispanics are the "rainbow race" since there are whites and blacks Hispanics. But American society does not see that. Lehoiberri (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: prot

No problem. It wasn't protected because of vandalism, so don't worry about that, but to get you folks to talk it out (edit warring is not good) :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cali567,

There is no intent to downgrading Amerindian people as you claim. This famous study though very controversial, has created since a very long time several edit wars not only on Demographics of Argentina article also in the argentina's. To prevent this kind of edit wars on 25 february 2008 I added a full section of every single genetic study of the argentine genome. So there is no need to re state the same section on the article. I hope you can understand the issue. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purported "controversy" of the study is not inherent to the study itself. The controversy is due to the implications of its findings. Let's try to find a solution amongst ourselves. If not, we can follow up the conflict resolution procedure: (1) request a third-party opinion [arguably, Xavexgoem can be that third party] (2) Request for Mediation, and if all fails, (3) Request for Arbitration. Hopefully, we will be able to reach a consensual solution before having to Request for Mediation/Arbitration. --the Dúnadan 14:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "White" Argentine Photo

If you want to remove a picture from White Latin American, talk about it in Talk:White Latin American. I am giving you a warning, there are some editors in that page that don't like it that you remove pictures without a debate, and they will warn you that they will call an administrator on you if you continue to remove pictures. It happened to me when I tried to remove a picture in that page. Just debate about it and let, all the editors of that page to give an opinion. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Argentina Articles.

Hello,

Currently I am trying to take a wikibreak. When I get get back from it, I may look into what you suggested. Nevertheless, this is the complicated side of Wikipedia: when some editor gets personally involved with what should be neutral, factual content... Like your pal Lehoiberri. When I suggested that he may have felt strongly about that information because of being a half-argentine, half-chilean american, he took great offense in my comment and reported me to the Wikiquette something. I really don't understand how some people can get so worked up about ethnicity. On the other hand, I also don't get why have so many articles on the issue: White Latin American, White Hispanic and Latino Americans, Castizo, Mestizo, etc, etc, etc... Why the fixation with dividing and labeling people into what are arbitrary categories anyway?

I also feel that the information should be included, but I don't want to get into another conflict with that guy. So, in the meantime, while I'm on a wikibreak, I'll think of a way to approach the issue and try to reach consensus. But from what I saw on your talk page, he seems to be dead set on not allowing the information to be included. We'll see. –w2bh _{talk•contribs} 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican American article

Obviously you are inclining towards the white people. There are people called "Latina brown." That Mexican American article with all colonialist whites are a disgrace to proud brown Mexicans. Don't be whitewashed with history. In the United States, Mexicans are brown people. Americans will always consider white Mexicans white people. They are never Mexican. It is just simple racial aspect. Be proud of your heritage if you are one, but including many Spanish people as "Mexican" is a simple disgrace to proud people and proud culture. Remember Aztec that the white people just destroyed. Be open minded but please don't include 90% white people's picture in a "Mexican" article. "Latino brown" 71.237.70.49 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recient edits

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Fercho85 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "warning"

Hello Cali:

First, I have to tell you that the same "warning" can be used in his case, since he has reverted every single addition that you made. You should tell him that the 3 Reverts Rule applies to every member without exceptions.

About your edits, I think that if your information is sourced properly, it should be included. It doesn't matter if he do not like the data you are adding, if it is sourced, it belongs to the article. Just be careful about your wording, always try to be encyclopedic.

Contribuitions that are sourced are not considered vandalism, and about edit-warring, he just doesn't have real arguments to sustain that, it is just HIS perception because he doesn't like what you added.

The best idea is to be civil and explain that to him. If he do not seem to understand, or is not willing to understand, you should ask an administrator to take a look into the issue. I hope I helped you with my comments. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to tell you something, he's saying that a "consensus" was reached, and uses that argument to revert your sourced edits (I doubt that since those article are different). Your should ask him to show you the actual discusion page where that "consensus" was reached. However, per wikipedia policy, if such a consensus (if not fake) was reached, it can change. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Grammar counts at Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because you repeated, word for word, most of one sentence in an ungrammatical mess. I have looked at both of your more recent edits and neither are redundant, and neither are ungrammatical, so I will not revert them. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring

Hello, I've seen your edits to several article regarding the demographics of Argentina and see that you have been revert warring at times. I understand that content disputes can get people stirred up at times but please use talk pages to discuss major changes to articles in order to establish consensus for any major changes. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't get it?

I have to repeat this again since you seem to not to pay attention to me nor what you are sourcing. That study does not say 56% of Argentines are mestizo. It says 56% of Argentines have an indigenous ancestor in their maternal or paternal linage. Do you even know what Mestizo means? If you look at that study and use the caste system of Latin America, that makes Argentines White. Please stop the manipulation. Thank you. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Dear Cali567 there has been a consensus on Demographics of Argentina[1] talk page and not respecting it is considered vandalism. Please when you are using a user page refer to other users without making any personal attacks.

Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please when you are using a user page avoid making any personal attacks. You claim that the study is not cited when as a matter of fact it is well stated and twice in different sections (Indigenous peoples and genetical studies). --Fercho85 (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cali, if you don't agree with the previous consensus feel free to discuss it a its talk page. But don't make edits without discuss them formally at its talk page --Fercho85 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now going to far!

I am surprised by your comment "Haha, sending messages to yourself Fercho85/Lehoberri!". You are now accusing me and Fercho85 of being the same person. This is not your only time that you are accusing me of sockpuppetry, the first time was in Dúnadan talk page. This is really low and unprofessional that you want to ban users who disagree with you. To me, it looks like that you are trying to do revenge since you were also suspected of sockpuppetry. If you didn't notice, I stop removing the study since it is hard to remove a sourced subject, even on a controversial source. The only thing I remove is you manipulation of the sources to claim that majority of Argentines are Mestizos. I have try to get out of this controversy because I sick and tired of it, but your actions are not letting me. You are really a rude person, and I don't debate with rude people. Good day and don't even reply! Lehoiberri (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Wars

I have seen your revert wars in many articles and am in agreement about some of the information you put forth, however, I think it is wiser not to go into edit wars over these matters. This user who seems to be having trouble with your information has had trouble before. I think you would have more luck discussing in Talk Pages. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA on you

First, just to make you aware of it. [2] Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR is a good link worth looking at - for the content issues, Article RFC is a good place to start, but mediation would also be another step. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cali,

To answer your question here, about how to reported suspected sockpuppets, the appropriate place is here, where you will also find comprehensive instructions on how to file a report. However, please be advised that filing a spurious report could be considered highly uncivil, or even disruptive -- so please try to be fairly certain before you do.

Also, I would advise you against referring to someone casually as a sockpuppet when there is not yet any proof, as you did here. If you are really sure about someone, you should file a report at WP:SSP rather than taunt them without any proof.

Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I had not yet seen your reply to Ncmvocalist here. One thing you could try doing is filing a WP:Request for Comment about the page in question, to try to get more eyes on it. If you have questions about how to do so, I could help you out with that. Let me know. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Sombrero Award

		El Sombrero Barnstar Award
		You deserve this award for contributing to content of interest to the Latinos WikiProject. Outstanding contributions are generally about articles pertaining to Latinos and/or Hispanics in the United States as well as articles about Latin America. LatinoMuslim 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mestizos in Latin America

Please take look at the Casta. You will know what is and isn't mestizo. And just for the record, according to another study, the average Argentine has 18.1% Amerindian contribution. In the Casta, the average Argentine falls in White, not mestizo nor castizo. There is a similar study about White Americans having non-White ancestry (either Indigenous or African), so does that make them Multiracial? Lehoiberri (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cali, you're right about your edit's not being one-droppist. I retract that.

But I do think that you can't just tack on that info indiscriminately. Like anything else you add to an article, it has to be relevant.

In the Argentine American article, it looks especially out of place, as if tacked on by someone on a mission to discredit the whiteness of Argentines. The info needs better context, and until you're prepared to include it, it would best be left out. SamEV (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say you know what Mestizo is, but why do you keep insisting on putting Argentines as Mestizo, just like you are doing in Latin America. You should also remember that mostly every country follows self-identification (Argentina, United States, Mexico, Brazil, ect.). Look, There are African Americans with White ancestry, but they don't view themselves as White nor Mixed-Raced. I know recently that it was discovered that Al Sharpton has White ancestry, but he has not gone out claiming now that he is biracial. Al Sharpton still says he is black. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cali, in the Latin America article, you need to make sure it's part of a wider discussion of admixture. Otherwise, the material will just single out the Argentines as admixed.

In the Argentine American article, it looks even more out of place, especially because it's in the lead. Considering that admixture is the norm among all peoples and individuals, your attempts don't even seem to be all that good-faith. In fact, I'm more convinced now than before that it doesn't belong in the Argentine American article. It is too particular an article (it's about a subgroup of Argentines: those in the U.S.), and the info should relate to them; keep in mind that the study was conducted on people in Argentina, so it's applicability to Argentines elsewhere can be questioned. WP asks that info be directly relevant to the subject. That means a study conducted on Argentine Americans specifically. The best place for that info is the Demographics of Argentina article.

I think you'd do well to engage the other editors on the respective articles' talk pages. Both the wording and location of the material should be decided there. That's a better course than just restoring the material again and again. SamEV (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexican Girls picture

I wanted to make sure that did you know that this picture has created quite a controversy. There are editors who claimed that these girls are not Mexican. I don't have an opinion on this picture, but all I know is that are 150,000 German Mexicans, there is 1.1 million American Mexicans (Michelle Vieth is a perfect example of American Mexican), plus Mexico has receive other Northern European immigrants, and also in Northern Spain has a quite few numbers of Blonds (If you see the map in the Blond article, Galicia is the Blondest of Spain), so those girls can come from any of those groups.

In order to calm the controversy, SamEV removed this picture in White Latin American while I believe it was Likeminas who removed it from Latin America. I know SamEV wants to have sourced images (basically famous people either celeb, politician, businessperson, ect.), and he removed similar pictures of White Brazilians and Argentines[3]. I wanted to make sure if you knew about this. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, we're not allowing unsourced images at White Latin American. To make matters worse, that image in particular has provoked much controversy. Cali, see the discussion at Talk:Latin America#White population in Mexico. If you'd like more, head over to the NOR discussion about it. SamEV (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove any of them you want to. SamEV (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote quite clearly: remove any unsourced image you want. But don't use the 'but there are other unsourced images, too' excuse to readd an image that multiple users opposed. SamEV (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you kindly tell me where it is I said that any picture there is sourced?

For the third (?) time: if you want to remove any unsourced image, remove it. Do you understand, Cali? SamEV (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. SamEV (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Latin American

I have reverted your edit here at White Latin American. The source provided (the CIA factbook) specifically lists it as 97% white, so any attempt to separate it by yourself is purely unsourced. Looking over your edits, you need to be aware of the WP:3RR general limitation (note that you do not have a right to 3 reverts as any admin can block you in general for being disruptive). After seeing the discussion at WP:ANI, I am giving you a final warning. Do not try to edit war again for what you think the sources imply. If the sources don't explicitly state the ancestry, I'm blocking you for disruption. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the article talk page, Talk:White Latin American, first and then try get a outsider third-opinion and the rest of dispute resolution. Continuing to repeat your edits is not productive. Getting it out there and discussing it can usually lead to a compromise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina’s Ethnicity

I’m not actually giving a value judgment. And by that I mean that, I’m not saying that Argentineans are NOT White. They could very well be. All I’m saying is that there needs to be information (ig; genetic studies) that at least exposes the reader to the dubious nature of the self-reporting census. I’m arguing for complete and accurate information that lets the readers decide for themselves. Having said that, if you would like to engage in the debate, please feel free to join it. But be mindful, that it’s a sensitive topic and that it needs to be treated dispassionately and always relying more on facts than opinion. Likeminas (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Cali567. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cali567.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Thank you.Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

Alright, let me just ask, where is the consensus you are citing at White Argentine here? There is nothing on the talk page other than a single statement from you and if it wasn't clear from all the discussions everywhere, there is a lot of disputes about your view. Last warning. One more disruptive edit to those articles and I am blocking you. You are going to discuss things FIRST and let others come up with a compromise, if they can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I warned you multiple times to use the talk pages and follow dispute resolution. I apologize for not responding but repeating the same arguments again and again is not the proper resolution. If you disagree, post an unblock request as I will also note this at WP:ANI for outside review. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

On review, it was partially my fault for not responding and I feel like I was too hasty. I see that others have tried working things out with you so I've reversed the block. My apologies but I do want to say that language like you have at Talk:Demographics of Argentina about "It is taken out by many pro-European Latin Americans here on Wikipedia" is not productive and is against the policy of assuming good faith. Provide your sources and let people negotiate on the talk page about them. I will be speaking to the other party more about this issue. I will try to help out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cali567 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Ricky81682 blocked me and then realized he acted too hastily and unblocked me. I am, however, still blocked. Please remove the block, as I can't communicate.

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.

Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. — Sandstein 09:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry about that. Try again. I think I caught the autoblock now. It's been a while for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Argentina source

Hello, apologies again for everything before, but can you help me verify what is the source for the 7% Mestizo figure. Here, you added it in as "autogenerated1", which doesn't exist (and still doesn't). I'm guessing that you meant it be to from http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Argentina.html following this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You've broken 3RR at Demographics of Argentina (surprise!). Only the previous block-unblock saves you from being blocked again. Please don't revert again in the near future or you certainly will be blocked for it. Oh, and all sides should lay off the allegations of vandalism in the edit comments William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues regarding on Hispanic articles and other problematic issues

You seemed to have an obsession for Filipinos based on your troubled edit history and other issues regarding to Latino/Hispanic articles. Judging on the information you have provided in wikipedia; you seemed to have not undergone or conducted any research study what so ever. Your edits on most Latino/Hispanic articles are simply based on your personal point of view or NPOV as i call it, or maybe your just to ignorant to understand. Do me a little favour User:Cali567, use a "book" to do your research and not your mouth. You will be amazed of what you said are false; and what i said is true. Try harder and do your research properly. Saludos! --IQfur1 4:34 25 April 2009 (UTC), —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQfur01 (talk • contribs)

Spanish culture is a European culture, not a Western culture

Used your brain, and common sense User:Cali567. Always used it and use it wisely. Find a "book" and do a little reading. Saludos! -- IQfur1 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQfur01 (talk • contribs) [reply]

SamEv ....well poor choice of words on an edit summary [4] CashRules (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and poor grammar on articles and other problematic issue

You have used poor word and grammar on the Hispanic influence on Filipino culture and other articles you have edited. There is no such thing as a "traditional chinese culture"?. Were did that come from?; User:Cali567.

Before Europeans first came to the Philippines. Religion such as Animism mixed together with Islam, Buddism and Hinduism religion. The primitive Filipinos practised Islamic and Animism religion mixed with primitive Malayo-Polynesian culture. These were the dominant religion. Malayo-Polynesian is primitive culture of the Taiwanese aborigines and the Polynesian people; and again "Not" Chinese culture. -- User:IQfur1 6:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQfur01 (talk • contribs)

notice

Please see: this notice — Ched : ? 09:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]