User talk:Dropmeoff

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 02:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Images
Please be sure to include information on source and copyright status on any and all images you upload (I notice for example that Image:Teotihuacantemplesun1a.jpg is lacking such). Images without this information can be deleted from Wikipedia. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture
I'm pretty sure Image:SOS assaulting.jpg is an AP photo. If you are not the photographer you can not grant Wikipedia permission to use it. I'm going to tag it as PUI. If you care to dispute it, please do so on the talkpage. Thanks, --Rockero 06:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you'll want to go here.--Rockero 06:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfree images uploaded
I have noticed you have uploaded images with inaccurate descriptions. You have no rights to claim ownership of photos you neither took nor hold the copyright to. If you have made a mistake in the description of images you have uploaded, please understand the importance of correcting them right away. Deliberately putting false information is considered vandalism, for which you can be blocked from editing. Please pay prompt attention to this matter. -- Infrogmation 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Stolenc wiki.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Stolenc wiki.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dr Zak 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:SOS assaulting.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:SOS assaulting.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dr Zak 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Olmec veracruz.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Olmec veracruz.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dr Zak 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hi there, just now you uploaded Image:Kiowa stolenc.jpg, saying you took the image yourself. That picture also appears somewhere on the website of the Mexica Movement, so the claim is somewhat unlikely, and the fact that you also uploaded a screenshot from a 1940s Smithsonian movie and said you took it doesn't exactly boost your credibility. Sorry to say, but we can't take others' images, as the goal is to build a free encyclopedia. Please read Copyright FAQ and do not upload more copyrighted images. Cheers! Dr Zak 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SUPPORT_003.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:SUPPORT_003.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A request
Hi Dropmeoff:

I've been following the discussion of "mestizo" and trying to contribute.

I have the distinct impression that some of the differences between you and Supaman89 are due to misunderstanding each other, more than to fundamental differences.

I respectfully ask that you consider this possibility.

Sincerely, Wanderer57 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mestizo Article
I am not the one vandalizing the article. You are inserting large amounts of POV and making many accusations which is against Wikipedia Policy. I've given you advice on how to go about. I have left a good amount of what you inserted because I think there is a place for it, just not in large amounts. I am not trying to "cover up" anything.

You accuse me of having "racial ideologies" - Let's get one thing straight - I AM Mestizo and I have ancestors from the Americas and Europe (A very equal amount from both). You took one look at my username and starting making many presumptions - isn't that what your trying to "fight"? By the way, I have read questionable comments made by yourself - and I have to question your motives as well.

You tell me, "you seem to be emotionally attached to promoting this phrase as an official designation". You can assume anything you want. I can tell you, however, that I have no problem being labeled a mestizo, because what else can I call myself? 'Mixed'? That's what 'mestizo' means after all, isn't it? You have no foundation in saying that "Europeans are a starting point" because they are the only racially pure group. The Indians

were considered a " pure race" as well and that is why Amerindian ancestry was found in many "Espanoles". Do I like the fact that the casta system (With support from many Spaniards, Not all) layed out a racial hierarchy? No, but at the same time the words assigned to the different mixes can be used "matter of factly". Is someone with half European and half African ancestry not mixed?

Even the Queen of Spain at the time supported Spaniards mixing with Amerindian women... In my opinion someone who is obsessed with "racial purity" would not support that. You may have several rebuttles to that argument, but it still stands - Many Europeans became united by blood to Amerindians, and they chose to do so. They became a family. I don't call that racism. There is a more innocent side to this, you have to agree.

You accuse me of taking many tones, such as,"Yeah, but they like calling themselves mestizos/half-breeds" - Since we are a mixture of BOTH people groups it is correct to note what we are using the word "mestizo". It is what the word means. I have no shame in calling both of those groups my ancestors. Rather, it is a source of pride for me. Now, do many people in Latin America and elswhere call themselves mestizo? YES. And you can't stop it, nor can you make it a source of shame.

Likening my edits to someone who puts "They like calling themselves Nigg--" is where you cross the line. Stop making personal attacks and we can work on this. I will use the words of a commentor on your talk page, "I have the distinct impression that some of the differences between you and are due to misunderstanding each other, more than to fundamental differences. I respectfully ask that you consider this possibility." C.Kent87 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything you are arguing is Pro-Spanish, Pro-Spanish, Pro-Spanish. You cite the Queen of Spain. You cite European blood as somehow being authoritative. You are in no position to be historical about something which you are obviously very emotional about (Pro-Spanish racial ideology).
 * You have DELETED historical information because of your personal attachment to Spanish racial ideology. You are a vandalist, pure and simple. You are compromising Wikipedia's ability to deliver a full story because you are emotionally attached to a "Spanish purity" racial system.
 * You sound like a racist, pure and simple and you really belong on Stormfront.org spewing your "Spanish race purity" pseudoscience. You do not belong on Wikipedia. You compromise the integrity of its articles with your "racial purity" pseudoscience.
 * Please grow up and realize that "mestizo" has no modern scientific validity. It is no longer used by social scientists. Please cease your vandalism (this is my second time asking you). Perhaps you would be happier at Stormfront.org where you would have plenty of White Supremacist users agreeing with your "racial purity" pseudoscience. Dropmeoff (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are really crossing the line. You cannot presume to tell me that I have a "Pro-Spanish" mentality. I have already made it very clear that I am PROUD of my Indigenous roots - without them, I would not be me. I understand your frusteration with the whole "Whitepedia: thing, but really. I almost can't believe that you still accuse me of these things. We need a moderator if you can't handle one on one talk. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have crossed the line when you delete other people's work. You contribute practically nothing in written articles nor in the discussion area. You have made it clear that you personally identify with the Spanish racial caste system. That's fine. But you have no right to delete academic references because you agree with the policies of "Spanish racial purity". Dropmeoff (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already warned you about making personal attacks. I'm in shock that you actually believe what your writing. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

January 2010
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. We need to reach concensus. C.Kent87 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR case
Hello Dropmeoff. See WP:AN3. Both you and C.Kent87 broke WP:3RR on this article. You are expected to obtain a consensus on the article's Talk page for any further reverts that you are tempted to make on this article. If not, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Spanish genocide1.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spanish genocide1.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)