User talk:IANVS/Archive

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Page titles
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Mercosul a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Mercosur. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * R'n'B, Mercosur page was previosuly cut&pasted into Mercosul, as you can see comparing both edit pages. At the time of the last move, most part of the talk-page section was, by far, already under "Mercosur" title page. In any case, I didn't know both edit pages would merge w/ move action. Thank for your advise. --IANVS (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Argentine presidents' titles
Dear fellow editor, I am aware that in Argentina and a few other South American countries it is usual to distinguish between 'de facto' and 'constitutional' presidents. I am also aware that the presidents concerned gained power through illegal means. However if we would use such distinction in the case of Argentina than it would need to be applied to all countries for the sake of consistency. And such categorizing can be subjective in some cases. What if in some country someone gained power through rigged elections? But what if electoral fraud was committed but it wasn't very wide scaled? Do we put the new president down as 'de facto' or 'de iure'? Furthermore in several countries whole decades' leaders should be branded illegal. My home country, Hungary, suffered a Communist dictatorship for almost 40 years. It wouldn't make much sense to put 'de facto' in front of the title of every head of state and government in that period. Or to go even further, there could be illegal countries as well. The Soviet Union came into existence illegally though violence and repression. This is why I think it makes sense just to stick to the bare fact and display each leader's official titles. If someone in interested, they can read that person's article at the click of a button. Best regards, Zoltán


 * Dear IANVS, thank you for your reply on my talkpage!
 * ad 1 You said "I think it will be impossible to ever standardize the way you consider the head of State of every single country". I agree with this IF we want to evaluate and label them. But if we don't, and just use their titles in a state leaders list (which contains the heads of state and government of almost 200 countries), this problem can be avoided, and the peculiarities of each case can be adequately explained on the pages detailing the respective countries' national histories. My idea has been that in a comprehensive list, such as this one, the leaders should be listed in a more or less standardized way.
 * ad 2 The distinction you explained in the second point between revolutionary and de facto military governments is a very interesting and important one! In my opinion this is typically one which can and should be explained in a specialized article.
 * Please let me know what you think! ZBukov (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Talk H/L Ams
Hello.

I can understand why you feel that way: your comments are really the only thing worth reading in that section. But there's so much ignorance coming from the other side that I think the section is a very net negative. The 2010 census forms go out in a few weeks. I expect that many people will come to the article, and many of these to the talk page, as they research the questions on race and ethnicity when filling out the form. I fear that that section will only muddy the waters for those people. Especially now that, because of the archiving (a good idea, overall), the section has pride of place at the top of the talk page.

BTW, some IP removed the section last week. That wasn't me. I only edit with this account. SamEV (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering adding some comments of my own, but I'm still not sure it will be enough. So I think I might remove it again. Thank you for understanding and your confidence in me. SamEV (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

El sol del 25 viene asomando...
Sí, las secciones pueden ser un poco largas, pero tengo mis motivos. Esta nominación a artículo bueno la uso como paso intermedio para filtrar esta clase de fallas que se me pasan por no ser hablante nativo del idioma inglés, pero mi meta real es presentarlo para artículo destacado, y si dan los tiempos poder tenerlo en Portada durante el bicentenario (la Portada del 25 de Mayo de 2011, como que no sería lo mismo). Y para más adelante, ver si puedo crear un "featured topic" sobre la Primera Junta. Claro que con Moreno, Saavedra, Belgrano o Castelli hay mucho con qué trabajar, pero de Alberti o Matheu apenas si hay con qué escribir un artículo que sea más grande que los menúes de la izquierda de la pantalla, pero ya voy a ver cómo hago. MBelgrano (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Todavía ando un poco indeciso sobre el enfoque que tendría que tener ese artículo. Cuando lo escribí por allá, todos los libros que había consultado o respaldaban la idea de tal cuestión, o no decían nada y se limitaban a "esto es lo que pasó, punto". Obviamente, los blogs que tratan de llamar la atención y redactados en tono "el día de la patria es un fraude", no cuentan. Parecía evidente que había un respaldo claro. Pero después seguí leyendo, y resultó que sí había autores importantes que criticaban la idea y planteaban un enfoque igualmente plausible, como indiqué en la sección del artículo de acá. O sea que si se escribe hay que hacerlo manteniendo el equilibrio entre las dos posturas.


 * Lo que sí sería más fácil de encarar sería un artículo Causes of the May Revolution, que describa con más detalle las causas nacionales e internacionales, y si en algún punto de acá hay sobreinformación, pasarla para allá. Creo que no hay uno así en español que se pueda traducir, pero se puede usar Causes of the French Revolution o Origins of the American Civil War como modelos. O, más simple, mantener el esquema de causas nacionales e internacionales, y hacer subsecciones para cada uno de los párrafos, ya que serían más largas.


 * Algo más inmediato es la nominación a artículo bueno. Podés ir haciendo las correcciones ortográficas que se pidieron (no hace falta analizar demasiado, es un tema casi mecánico), y mientras yo voy referenciando los puntos que se dijeron, ya que tengo los libros a mano. MBelgrano (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mi idea ahora sería agarrar algún artículo sobre un tema suficientemente parecido, pero en donde los principales interesados sean hablantes nativos de inglés, para ir "ajustando" el texto a las formas que usen ellos para describir puntos parecidos. Por ahora se me ocurre usar American Revolution como inspiración, ya que, salvando las distancias, es también un artículo sobre un proceso por el cual unas colonias de hace un par de siglos se rebelan contra sus amos europeos. MBelgrano (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Argentina Portal
I know you are doing good work on Argentina-related articles. I'd like to talk about the lack of Argentina editors. We used to have many and they have faded years ago. I'd like to remind people to become a member of WikiProject Argentina and contribute there to coordinate efforts. Also to remind people to add your contributions to the Argentina-related regional notice board so we can all be informed of new pages or major article rebuilds. Now, to get to the main point of this message. Years ago the Argentina Portal was neglected for lack of maintainers. I became the de-facto main (and sole) editor in 2008 and have been adding news and contributions to the article/image of the month features ever since. I requested some collaboration at the time but nobody came forward. That is fine. I am not asking for contributions and I plan to keep on maintaining the site. I feel it is important to show a good image of Argentina to the en.WP community and to the English-speaking world at large. Hence the interest in having a good-looking, properly maintained portal. What I am asking for is a second set of eyes to look at it, comment and criticize, and to suggest good articles/images for the monthly feature. I know we are all busy with our own projects in Wikipedia. I am not asking for edits, just for suggestions when you come across a good article or image. Let me know by Talk message or email, and I will do the work of posting it (hint: I post article/image of the month way in advance to ease the load). I would like to get the Argentina Portal to Featured Portal status, but it is not easy to do without some help. At least C&C. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the long-winded message. -- Alexf(talk) 13:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Map
Because it has greater value when there than when not. The borders drawn in maps in reliable sources vary. If you want to edit the image to modify the borders slightly, fine, but don't just blow it away. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, note the legend to the map you deleted. Despite what the image name may be, the legend says 1822.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please explain what exactly you disagree with in my edits with appropriate citations.

Otherwise you will be reported for NPOV and abuse. 188.220.113.25 (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put the edit back and put something up on the talk page for you to vent your concerns.

Out of interest, having threatened to ban me, exactly what position do you hold on Wikipedia that grants you this power? And after only a single apparently objectionable edit on a subject in which you are deeply personally involved? 188.220.113.25 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of my changes were just re-wordings of what was already there (ie. things that were couched in ideological terms, or messily arranged, or in incorrect english). See the talk page for precise details. I will add a citation for the 2010 resumption of Falklands wrangling, however.

btw, I think it is dishonest to pass yourself off as having powers to issue "final warnings" prior to bans, when you do not hold any position here or have to powers to ban people. If you don't like what someone is doing, then explain why. Do not try to bludgeon them with false authority. 188.220.113.25 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, would not pass myself off as possessing admin powers, so it is categorically false that "any" other editor would act as you did. It is a fairly blatant attempt to brow-beat someone whom you clearly presumed to be new to wikipedia by pretending to be a sysop. This doesn't bode well for your honesty in other matters and may be in violation of wikipedia rules. 188.220.113.25 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wildbot
There's nothing wrong with removing the template left by Wildbot after fixing what it said, but you don't need to do it. The bot checks the articles were it works periodically, updates the template when needed, and remove it when there are no more things to fix MBelgrano (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gracias por el aviso. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning Vandals
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. --Edward130603 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

G20 Turkey
Although Turkey and Russia are located both Asia and Europe,These contries generally consider as a European state(because of econmoic,social,cultural and politics reasons,OECD ...) Also Turkey and Russia got place in European Economies Table( Turkey #6 and Russia #2 economy in Europe).Turkey and Russia are sociopolitically in Europe and should be European block."Europe is representing 6 countires+EU in G-20" it is Well-Known determination in whole world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.14.142 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop That edit war(!) Australia or Others are not inside Council of Europe or EUROSPHERE.Turkey is a part of the "Western Europe" branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations,Australia is in others branch****. And Australia is not listed as in a EUROPEAN economy or market,also is not even in Western European Union,and do not gain memebership statuss for EU etc etc... for geographically issuses Turkey both in WA and SEE and sociapolitically and ecenomically in in Europe with Eruosphere so listed as a western asian market is a big mistake,As for Influence of Countries Turkey is Regional power in Caucasia, Balkan peninsula and in greater Mid-east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_economy
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Turkey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe *(Turkey and Greece also considering Founder member)

so are u still continue ur insist on this subject, if so check out EU webside. and please do not change again without ur dones coming from official marketting.

and also check European eular diagram in ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organisations_in_Europe-

European Cenratral Bank says "Europe representing with 6 countries + EU ,inside G-20 and it shows Europe's Economic power in the world". before editing please show ur reason before comparing Turkey with Australia. Dont be in edit war go discussion page and tell people ur info's before editing --Aegeanfighter (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sealand
I would like to apologise for my error on the List of world leaders by countries talk page. You are absolutely right. I should have checked the edit history better. All the bestMk5384 (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perón
I left my opinion at the talk page. Feel free to state your own opinion on the topic as well. MBelgrano (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Generalissimo
Hello,

although you might feel a need to have these facts checked, please understand that you can not insert a "citation needed" template after every single sentence on the page, as this ruins the page's layout. Rather, in articles lacking this many citations, we can use the refimprove-template. Thanks, --hydrox (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

America
The reference you used as a rationale to roll back my edit to America confirms the reasons I used to make my edits. In American (word) The following sentence is used: "In modern English, 'American' generally refers to the United States, and in the U.S. itself this usage is almost universal.". This is confirmed again in Americas where a similar sentence is used: "America may be ambiguous in English, as it is more commonly used to refer to the United States of America.". I believe this proves my English language point. Ozdaren (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

King Ref
Have you noticed King Ref contributions. He barely made a small handful of edits in the last september, and 2 a month ago, and none at the articles Lecen usually works with or even related to the topics at hand (WWII, films, rivers...). And yet, he appears from out of nowhere to take part in a discussion, and even more, he claims he has been following Lecen's work for months. Strange, isn't it? MBelgrano (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

London
London and Madrid are not partner or sister cities.

Just have a look at the references "38". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorfo (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Newly Industrialized Countries
I'd just like to know what your rationale for reverting my edit on the Newly Industrialized Countries article was. My reason for rewording the paragraph is that it seemed like the paragraph was attempting to draw some inference about India being poor because the countries surrounding it were poor or mired in strife. In addition, none of the information I removed was cited. Vedant (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I gave an edit summary but in general it's good to read the difference between the current and previous revisions before simply hitting the revert button. Do you have any issues with the article?


 * Thanks, Vedant (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish IPA
Would you please mark all of my Spanish IPA corrections you reverted "local"? You can do that by adding |local}} at the end of the {{IPA-es template. Otherwise you imply that a Spaniard pronounces Iguazú with an s. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the changes for now, pending marking them as local, ensuring that they actually are local, and the outcome of the discussion. One of the concerns brought up on the talk page is that these aren't actually the local pronunciations, but simply substitute es for theta. There's generally more going on than that. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Heads of State of the South America
When you add a category like this please do not forget to add also noinclude tags. This will prevent to include in Category:South America politics and government templates also these pages and categories. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 08:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Selected Anniversaries May 25
I don't understand why you changed the May Revolution entry. It is far more informative and precise in the previous version. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was also much longer. --  tariq abjotu  00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla article: Background section
Hi IANVS, I added a discussion section for the background of this article. It seems to be getting a bit big. I'm not going to make any changes to shorten it, but you may want to add your thoughts to the discussion and support or reject the current length. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid

Zuchinni one (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not going to get into this right now. But it looks like the person who added the material you removed supports a history of the conflict leading up the blockade. I'm not sure about that, but I don't have the energy right now to get into it. Have a nice night :) Zuchinni one (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotation
In fact is almost the whole article :-(

"La actuación de las Fuerzas Armadas israelíes al tomar por la fuerza el control de buques mercantes de otra bandera en alta mar [..] y al causar la muerte violenta a varios de sus tripulantes, viola patentemente el Derecho Internacional [..]. Ningún Estado puede arrogarse facultades para restringir la libertad de circulación de cualquier buque por ese ámbito, ni menos ejercer la fuerza contra buques mercantes de otra bandera salvo en los contados casos en que lo autoriza el propio Derecho Internacional (piratería, trata de esclavos, sospechas de falsa bandera, etcétera). Y no cabe recurrir a la noción de zona o puerto bloqueado, propia del Derecho Marítimo de Guerra, cuando no existe tal guerra.

[..]

[..] se acordó en 1988 [..] el Convenio Internacional para la Supresión de Actos ilícitos contra la Seguridad de la Navegación Marítima (SUA) que [..] tipifica como delito el apoderarse por la fuerza de un buque o de su control, o el realizar actos de violencia contra las personas embarcadas, por cualquier motivo que se efectúe, sea privado o público, económico o terrorista. [..] el Estado israelí ratificó hace muy poco este Convenio (entró en vigor para él en abril de 2009) [..]

El artículo 6.1 del SUA establece la jurisdicción obligatoria para sancionar los actos ilícitos en cuestión del país cuya bandera enarbola el buque en el cual o contra el cual se ha realizado el acto de fuerza."

I don't know if we can quote all of it without bleaching copyright. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, possibly the best option is including it into the article and leave other people to fix the translation if really needed. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Repitition of Lead info
Hi IANVS! Good edits in the lead recently. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid and whether you think it is repetitive?

I'm trying to limit my edits to minor wording changes for clarification, so I am not going to remove it myself.

Zuchinni one (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags at Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid
Read this: Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid --Kslotte (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "American"
Generally in the English-speaking world, "American" refers to someone from the USA. Perhaps "Americano" means something different in Spanish, but this is English-language Wikipedia, and I believe it should reflect the more common English-language application. There was no consensus on the discussion page, and I'm contemplating reverting it to my edit. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for responding. While it's true "American" can have other uses in the English-speaking world, the most common usage in English is to denote someone from the USA, and should therefore be the first listing as it is the primary usage in English.  Based on your response, it is clear that English is not your native tongue, so you may not be aware of this fact.  Personally, I don't care what "Americano" means to a Spanish speaker.  As I said, this is English-language Wikipedia and the common English application of the term should come first. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Words to avoid
See WP:CLAIM and WP:ALLEGED. Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla
How do you call it unsourced when I added a clear source? Did you bother opening the article and reading it? I await your self-revert. Breein1007 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And just for full disclosure, if you do not self-revert, I will be reporting you for violating 1RR and you will be blocked. Breein1007 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

recent edit "majority of aid"
IANVS, in your recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366242380&oldid=366241823

Your comment was that you were removing unsourced speculation, but you also inserted sourced speculation. "thought to be the majority of the aid".

I'm not sure that speculation of any kind belongs in the lead. This speculation is already mentioned in the "fate of the cargo" section. Would you mind removing it from the lead?

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So you don't remind it being removed for being speculation? Zuchinni one (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I think we are in agreement. I will remove that "thought to be" bit from the lead, but it will remain in a later section of the article. That way the lead can stay as factual and speculation free as possible. Cheers :)  Zuchinni one (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way ... I do agree with your assessment of the edit you linked to on my talk page. I think the change was reasonable. Cheers :) Zuchinni one (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to be careful
Hi IANVS, I think you've been making some good contributions to the Gaza flotilla article, but you might not be aware you've passed the 1RR limit. I don't think you're edit warring, but you should be careful or you might get a block. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, the POV pushing is driving me a bit nuts, especially in the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: . Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for violation of the 1RR (and 3RR) at Gaza flotilla raid. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  07:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Admin, please revise your block since the context is different here: please see Talk:Gaza flotilla raid and Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Regards, --DoostdarWKP (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol
I just saw your edit on Jalepenos page when I went there to let him know that removing mention of the journalists onboard the ships might not be a good idea. You made me LOL :) Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

REACTIONS to gaza flotilla raid
per Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid i altered the page a bit, see how you like it now. The original was as per the talk and approval from both of us, so i was a little surprise by your change, but is the new one better?

These zionist editors are flagrantly violating POV with censorship, i havent see the the main page for this, but jalapenos has inserted more than his fair share of POV edits. Just to say, i support you against himLihaas (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin America
Hey, IANVS.

I find it strange, but Ribeiro doesn't just classify Guatemala, but in fact "Central America" among the 'witness peoples'; and he doesn't classify Cen. Am. as 'new peoples'. Here's the quotation: "Darcy Ribeiro has proposed a classification between 'witness peoples' (Mexico, Central America, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador), 'new peoples' (Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Caribbean nations, Chile and Paraguay) and 'transplanted peoples' (Uruguay and Argentina)." That's from Google Books US, (or try ). I have no access to the Spanish-language version. Are the two versions different? SamEV (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have expected Central America to be among the new peoples, with Guatemala as the one testimony nation and Costa Rica as the transplanted one.

And obviously, he's right about how, for example, we see mestizos and whites categorized together in some countries.

Thanks. SamEV (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Concrete date
A date to finish of the wars is a good idea, but a decade is too much!. I put a concrete date here, that furthermore is very ilustrative (and include Naval War in Caribe).Regards.--Santos30 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with translation

 * Hello, IANVS, could you please translate the Spanish text, when and if you have a time. Thanks.
 * Respecto a este drama, en que una niña es sacrificada en aras de su religión, en el año 1860, un profesor de Historia v de Arqueología en el gran Seminario de Langres, en Francia, miembro de la Sociedad Histórica y canónigo honorario de Argel. M. León Godard, publicó una óbra titulada Description et Histoire du Maroc. En ella se lee lo siguiente, que traducimos textualmente: "A pesar de su intolerancia, los marroquíes, por una contradicción cuanto menos aparente, honran en ciertos casos, a los santos personajes de otras religiones o piden a aquellos que nombran infieles el socorro de sus oraciones. En Fez rinden una especie de culto a la memoria de la joven Sol Hachuel, judía de Tánger, que murió en nuestra época, en atroces suplicios, antes que abjurar la Ley de Moisés o que reiterar una abjuración que había hecho, cediendo a seducciones amorosas." 

--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, translation is fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on the article. I had to replace your work with the original source by León Godard. It was not my choice, but other user expressed concerns on the talk page of the article about the source we used because it is blog.Regards, and thanks again. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mex.-Am. Article
Thank you for reverting the POV, I did so just after you did, so mine didn't matter! Thanks. C.Kent87 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of Social populism
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Social populism. I do not think that Social populism fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because the article is not very short and the context makes it very easy to identify the subject of the article. I request that you consider not re-tagging Social populism for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with prod or nominate it at WP:AFD.  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi IANVS, I am the author (creator) of the page which you have been editing Social populism, and I have taken on board the comments which you had made about the page and will look into them and correct them, in the meantime if you would like you could identify some mistakes, errors and improve it yourself if your sole intention really is to improve Wikipedia, the fact is that I have spent 7 hours of my day today creating that from 'scratch'. Previous to your message on my talk page regarding a 'Speedy Deletion' had been given by an administrator regarding a 'speedy deletion' and it was then agreed upon that I would improve it which I did and many administrators agreed with myself, regarding your request for 'speedy deletion' it was turned down by User:Shirik and comments that you had placed on there had been removed by himself (an administrator) and as I understood you reverted three edits within half-an-hour which under the three-revert-rule constitutes to edit warring and that too against an administrator and subsequently I removed one comment of yours on the talk page and instantly a comment was made by yourself regarding that on User talk:Shirik, on one hand you broke a policy and I didn't. I hope that in the future you are able to make, sensible and  useful  contributions to Social populism and that your knowledge, if any on the topic will be entered into Wikipedia to contribute to the wider community of Wikipedia. Thank you and I look forward to a reply to yourself regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact me at my user talk page.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to my message intended for yourself. May I just say though that further to your reply I was not appreciative of your edit warring with the administrator and myself or neither was I appreciative of the citations that you had made although I am appreciative of the fact that you are willing to help me with this for the wider Wikipedia, surely instead of criticising you should aid and improve. May I actually ask what you found wrong with the complete article. Thanks.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:IANVS, yes I am aware that the internet Oxford University Dictionary doesn't have it, it is in my home copy of the OUP Dictionary if you would like I am more than happy to scan it and send a copy to yourself, just for info I'll be removing the tag as I have stated to try your edits on the sandbox page but obviously you disregarded that. Thanks.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well instead of 'it's up to you' 'ing' me do some work you seem to be able to do enough criticism, well use your brain (in the case you have got one) and make corrections, in the mean time I am going to do something about you because you are becoming a pest. Thanks.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you many times: Until I learn about what are we talking about, I cannot do anything. Why? Because I simply don't know what are you calling Social Populism, and you are unable to reasonably explain it.


 * In my opinion, the article, as it stands today, has no sense at all. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 09:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say, no-one cares about your opinion and also I see your are a member of WikiProject Politics and you have just told me you don't know what Social Populism is then don't comment! Don't get involved..

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Bear in mind No personal attacks
 * 2) I'm afraid you don't get that WP is edited by many users. You don't own any article.
 * 3) I don't know what social populism is, because it is nothing until someone defines it. (Verifiability, not truth)


 * Be well. -- IANVS (talk | cont) 09:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Some advice for you to:


 * 1)No edit warring
 * 2)No arguing with administrators
 * 3)The three revert rule

Learn these before commenting about me and that was not a personal attack that was an acknowledgement.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the Irony. -- IANVS (talk | cont) 11:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read Shakira's article as she is Colombia
This is your first warning for an error introduction. Please don't revert like this again. moreno oso (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Colombian does not mean Hispanic and Latino American, my friend. Just Latin Americann as you can get. I guess you should read the same article we are discussing about. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 14:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Uruguayan War
IANVS, it is always nice to see other editors helping write articles. In Uruguayan War article you added some info about Spanish settlement. The problem is that you did that and kept the older sources which do not give the information you wrote. It would be nice if you could provide source that back your edit. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. I was reading about Villa Soriano and found out that it only became a permanent settlement in 1708 and was considered a village only in 1802. Also, all information for the time before that it still disputed among historians. Did you know that or you added that text into Uruguayan War without knowledge of this fact? --Lecen (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not mean much. Fortaleza, the city where I live had its first settlement build by the Portuguese but later the Dutch stablished another settlement just a few miles alway. The second one is the one counted for effective settlement. The connection between a town created in the Uruguayan east and a later settlement with the same name in the west can hardly be considered the same place. Also, not a single book mentions that town. The only place in the internet that back the claim added into the article is the town's official website. Everysingle book I read mentions Sacramento as the first settlement whis was later followed by Montevideo. If there are historians that are right now discussing whether it was or not the first Uruguayan settlement that might be added in the History of Uruguay article. And even so that would be a minority view. Thus, I will remove it and re-establish the older text in the next weeks. If you are eager to prove your claim, I would like to request books, pages and transcriptions from them. If I am not mistaken, the Latin America has the information that Brazil is divided in Whites, Mulattoes and Blacks. I tried to warn the other editors of that mistake since Brazil and Empire of Brazil has the correct information but I was ignored at the best - including by you - and my edits were always reverted. Since I a have a very different kind of behavior than - apparantely - the Hispanic-American editors I will wait until you bring sources so we can discuss the matter as civilized people. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not working in the article for the moment. I just finished a couple of months ago the Platine War article and now I am busy with other historical Brazilian articles. All I am asking is that you should bring more sources for the information you've added and I will leave there until I begin working on it once again. Since all articles I work I nominate to Good Article status, I need them with reliable and majority sources. On Latin America: the article should be changed simply to "Hispanic-America" since it hardly mention Brazil and the information regarding it is wrong. I tried to help but I can't deal with article's ownership. That's why I did not revert your edit but tried to deal with the matter in here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment to you
You will be happy to hear that the page Social populism has been protected meaning neither you or myself can edit it. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks.

-- HelpingHand  Talk  19:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re/ List of countries by population
Thanks for your message, I changed because we are discussing on it, I replied to the person concerned in the talk section but if you revert it again he will not notice the change and not reply.

p.s. nice the photo of BA is that Palermo?

hasta luego! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.145.157 (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Last year, a good friend of mine moved there (from Italy). I loved Buenos Aires! :-)

p.s aah i see you put I did an act of "vandalism" on the page? That is not fair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.145.157 (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I already answered in your talk-page. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 07:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice
Re. Social populism

I'm sorry, I don't kow what advice to give.

This isn't a topic area that I know a great deal about, but from my own understanding of the issues raised on the talk, I would think it is "fixable", rather than requiring deletion. I'm in no way sure of that, and if you'd like to take it to AfD, I hope you'd get more of a discussion.

I can understand your concern - that it may not be clearly defined, or contradictory - and I agree that it needs sorting out; I just have the feeling that it could be rectified, if some expert(s) in the area were able to provide further referenced details. Maybe worth asking on some project pages, perhaps, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics to get more opinions?

Sorry I can't help more directly. Best,  Chzz  ► 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(copied this to my talk, to keep the thread in one - and I've answered a bit more. Sorry, I should've replied there in the first place, really; I was sneakily moving it here to keep my talk page size down!)  Chzz  ► 21:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of Spanish words having different meanings in distinct Spanish-speaking countries
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Spanish words having different meanings in distinct Spanish-speaking countries, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Cnilep (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The remains found in Seville identified as having belonged to Christopher Columbus

 * Results are not conclusive until Dominican Republic allows for the Santo Domingo Mausoleum remains to be examined for comparision. Not conclusive identification then. --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * De todas formas este proyecto no se finalizará hasta que las autoridades de la República Dominicana no permitan contrastar estos datos con los restos del mausoleo levantado en Santo Domingo...


 * ...La cantidad de huesos encontrados en la catedral de Sevilla no descarta que ambas tumbas compartieran la posesión del los restos de Colón, algo que sucedía frecuentemente en los traslados de cadáveres de personajes famosos y reliquias.


 * The researchers NEVER said their RESULTS WERE NOT CONCLUSIVE (not after their communication in 2006). The only reason the project is not finished is that they cannot determine whether the remains found in Santo Domingo had ALSO belonged to Colón until they are allowed to analyze them, and they DON'T NEED TO EXAMINE SANTO DOMINGO MAUSOLEUM'S REMAINS FOR COMPARISON, just to determine if Santo Domingo's Colon's remains are authentic. The comparison was already carried out with Colón's brother remains, Diego, and those of Colón's son, Hernando. The results of the analysis of the remains found in Seville are pretty conclusive about their origin, or at least this is what the researchers already stated:


 * nos permitieron afirmar que los restos encontrados en la catedral de Sevilla, pertenecían al almirante


 * Reference: Álvarez-Cubero, MJ; Martínez-González, LJ; Saiz, M; Álvarez, JC; Lorente, JA. "New applications in genetic identification." Cuadernos de Medicina Forense. 2010 vol. 16 iss. 1-2 pp. 5-18 ISSN 1135-7606 http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S1135-76062010000100002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es Heathmoor (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Empire
Hi.

Am I wrong or have you had some issues with the Spanish Empire article? I could look at the talk page, but I abruptly removed myself from over there last year (?), and don't plan to return just yet. But I'm curious about what your issues were. Would list them, succinctly? SamEV (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been involved in some argument about the Spanish Empire map, that's all as far as I can recall. Nothing serious. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic
Please do not include the people of Spain when using the word hispanic. I don't know of what lineage you are from, but I am Spanish American from Spain and I have been to Spain about 20 times and have also lived there for an extended period of time. I personally know thousands of Spainards as well as many Europeans and no one from Spain or Europe or any other part of the world considers Spainards to be hispanic, and futher more they are not hispanic. Hispanic comes from the word hispano in Spanish as is for the people of Latin America that are mestizo. So please stop discriminating against Spaniards. We are not hispanic nor do we want to be hispanic. We are Caucasian Europeans!Daniel Torres76.231.172.183 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your editions are WP:POV, as existant definitions are correctly sourced in the article. You should comply with the WP:RS policy, finding a reliable source to support your perspective. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Spanish spoken by population in Spain
The other thing I wanted to say is that Spanish is not spoken by 100% of the population in Spain. There are some Europeans that live in Spain and by and large they don't speak Spanish though some do. That's why it's at about 93% of the population.

Daniel Torres76.231.172.183 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You should provide reliable sources to support your statement. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution/Banana Wars
The United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution is and always has been considered part of the Banana Wars. The biggest event of America's involvement in the revolution was the United States occupation of Veracruz, carried out by the U.S. Navy and Marines who were fighting all over the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico at that time. I think the conflict called the Border War (1910-1918) is disputable in terms of being part of the Banana Wars but some do consider it to be. Look at the Banana Wars history, look at United States Marine Corps historyl, look at United States Navy history.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

sovereign states sorting criteria
Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invititation, but I'm not having the time to participate in the ongoing discussion right now. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Uruguayan War
Do you what know something that really bothers me? It is when there is an editor who does absolutely nothing to improve an article and keeps preventing other editors from doing it. So far I had plenty of headaches with Hispanic-American editors in Wikipedia, who - for rediculous anti-Brazilian prejudice - prevent any article that somehow Brazil is involved from being improved. You took an website, who has no bibliography and use it as source. Even though NO book written in Spanish or Portuguese agree with the vesrion given in that website. In fact, a website about an obscure Uruguayan town.

Since I am not in the mood to lose time discussing the matter here. I simply removed the phrase "the oldest in continuous existence" so to avoid any controversy. Whether the first town founded in Uruguay was a Portuguese or a Spanish one, it DOES NOT MATTER. If you want to write about explorers in Uruguay, or who founded it first, or something similar, do that in History of Uruguay. Or if you want to be helpful, start filling the sections that have no text. If not, at least do not get in the way of serious editors. Thank you. --Lecen (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, your new editions and comments (except from insults) are fine with me. That was not what I understood from your previous editions. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP MAKING FALSE VANDALISM REPORTS
'''STOP MAKING FALSE VANDALISM REPORTS. YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED TO STOP EDITOR WARRING AND USING LIES. STOP TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE HISPANIC CULTURE WIKIPEDIA EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY DENYING OTHERS THE ABILITY TO EDIT WITH YOUR LIES STOP LYING STOP LYING STOP LYING STOP MAKING FALSE REPORTS OF VANDALISM AGAINST FELLOW EDITORS STOP LYING OBEY THE VANDALISM PROCEDURES BY GIVING WARNINGS INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR AND LYING IF YOU CONTINUE TO LIE BY ACCUSING OTHERS OF VANDALISM YOU WILL BE REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITIES''' (Correctpublishing (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

WHO DO YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE - GOD?
YOU WROTE: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at wetback (slur). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

RESPONSE: PROVE YOUR POINT RATHER THAN LIE, AM I TO TAKE YOUR WORDS AS FACTS, "Your edits appear to constitute" STUPIDITY.

YOU WROTE: Information.svg Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Hispanic. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

RESPONSE: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, YOU APPEAR TO BE STUPID AND INSANE. PROVE YOUR POINT OR DON'T SAY ANYTHING. YOU TEND TO LIE ALOT.

YOU WROTE: Information.svg Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Hispanic and Latino Americans. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

RESPONSE:

AGAIN YOU ARE NOT PROVING ANY POINT.....KEEP MAKING FALSE VANDALISM CLAIMS.....IT WILL CATCH UP WITH YOU

THE REFERENCES ARE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE..OPEN YOUR EYES AND LEARN TO COMPREHEND SIMPLE ENGLISH. IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUE LEARN TO ARTICULATE YOUR ISSUE INSTEAD OF MAKING IGNORANT GENERAL STATEMENTS.

(Correctpublishing (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA EDITORIAL POLICIES "EDITOR WARRING.

Aspirated 's' before 'h'
I'm currently learning River Plate Spanish and found the article on it very useful. As far as the aspirated 's', does this occur before all consonants or is 'h' an exception? For example, would the 's' in 'Ellos hablan' be aspirated in River Plate Spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.215 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ecuador crisis
jsut saw this in an edit conflict. 2 issues: one for posterity sake when the edits go from the apge several months down the list one will not what "Thursday" night meant. And the source also says Evo called the meeting.Lihaas (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The meeting was called by Piñera, Kirchner, Morales, et al. Not only by Morales. I'll check the dates. --IANVS (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool ;)
 * Although does the source say who called it, theres already the RS that said Evo.(Lihaas (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).


 * And other sources mentioned Piñera's call, Kirchner's call, etc. The only one capable of formally calling a meeting is currently Correa, who is pro-tempore president. The meeting was held in BA probably because it was Kirchner who effectively summoned it. So, it is better to left this unresolved. Evo does not have any formal attribution (no more than any other) to call the meeting. --IANVS (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool. ive not read that.
 * Also, i just posted ont he talk page, but since you speak spanish do you know of the law itself? Wikipeida could sure have that law becasue of its notability. Ill help with that page if you want to create it.(Lihaas (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).
 * This edit was removed in pieces ( and and the rest was put elsewhere by me). Was the police chant in the source (spanish one)? Because it should be in, but someone said it wasn.t(Lihaas (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).
 * Yes, this source says that: --IANVS (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, i added it back then. Check to see if its okay.
 * My god, we've taken over the apge ;)(Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)).
 * Yep :P --IANVS (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Destroyed maybe the english translation, perhaps you can get better wording from the video.Lihaas (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's the source. --IANVS (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes my friend after the clashes
Actually they were two, one confrontation by himself, and another between the three parties. Please read the article i cited, if you wish to see the video i also have the link blupper92


 * I already gave a reference that he was hurt and taken to the hjospital after the "clash by hiumself". Then there were the rest of the clashes. --IANVS (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Article on forum
It's an article based on the opinions on their forum.. so their interviews on the streets are unreliable also? It's an article and the main point is that the debate is out there. --Amnesico29 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is non notable enough for the intro. Maybe at the "reactions" section. A single forum is not representative, nor notable, as international institutions are. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Says who? why not in the intro? it summarizes the whole debate!--Amnesico29 (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. Certainly, the BBC Forums are not a notable source for an intro. --IANVS (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks
Thank you for sorting through and fixing the presentation of Chilean names and words on 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Your edits improved the consistency a lot and helped make the article appear much more professional. Cheers! Veriss (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. t is just my obsession with proper Spanish. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident
On a separate but related concern. Have you had confidence that all the Spanish sources cited in fact cover the statements that they are attached to? My Spanish is not good enough to even attempt to review them so I haven't been flagging them as unverified out of good faith. Cheers Veriss (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are quite a lot of them. I'll take a look later. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Aregentine elections
Do you have any details on this yet? Even if its just a brief mention and 1 source for now? We can then go ahead and create the page.Lihaas (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already created Argentine general election, 2011. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

PATAGONIA
I see that you are an Argentina Editor for Wikipedia, I am an editor and Historian from Chile. How can you send me this note QUOTE This is nonsensical. Are you saying that the boundaries of Patagonia are to be defined by a XIXth century map? Or maybe from the territories supposedly roamed by Tehuelches? (not now, of course, but 15k years ago, when it would be impossible to talk about tehuelches properly)??? Oh, come on. Please, bring on reliable sources and serious data to contrast. --IANVS (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)UNQUOTE How can you say this, also send me notices and messages everywhere my work on Patagonia for Wikipedia is edited, you Edit again and threten? Here we are not trying to take any part of Patagonia from Argentina, what we are trying to do is to clarify the Chilean patagonia Northern Boundaries, with Historic citations, geography and well documented arguments.Since it is all written and it is all in History books and you will not change it via the WEB or because you are from Argentina and think to be an authority in Patagonia matters. Leave our Chilean matters alone we do not discuss about your internal affairs. Also be brave, and answer in this media and all the post you have posted agains me or my articles with SOLID EVIDENCE in what you are trying to say.--Jaimesaid (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, if you felt hurt personally because of what I pointed out regarding an edit, and its purpoted sources, please forgive me. But I'm sure you should take notice of how wikipedia is edited, so as to avoid any further misunderstanding between you and other editors.

-In Wikipedia no one has the right to claim The Truth in any matter. Instead, WP aspire to verifiability -In Wikipedia anyone can edit, as long as his editions are backed by notable, reliable, relevant sources. -More important, all realiable and relevant sources should be taken into account, so as to avoid relying on a single Point of View as much as possible. -In WP, edit discussions at the talk page are not to be taken personal.
 * Regarding your message in my talk page, please consider that:

1) I really don't care WHO you are. That is not important at all in WP. I'm not talking to you "personally" (I'm just trying to help you learning WP policies and behavior guidelines), nor you have any editing privileges for being an historian or whatever you say you are in real life. See: WP:OWN. BTW, you may be interested in this: Conflict of interest. 2) Your single source is surely not the only relevant and reliable source for the article in question. See: WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY 3) Regarding the article, I'm just behaving in a conservative manner, restoring what has been longstanding versions in the face of what appears to be a massive edit based on just one source (which I don't know if it is remarkable enough, but I suspect it doesn't). See: WP:UNDUE. 4) Regarding the article's talk page, I've been discussing the editions and the sources. This is not personal. On the other hand your deletions of my edits at the talk page are WP:vandalism. 5) Regarding your talk page, I've been not threatening you. I just wanted to let you know policy guidelines. Certainly, if you cannot or do not want to comply with policies you may be blocked. 6) Regarding what you have written in my talk page, please avoid personal remarks. This is also considered a fault of civility.
 * Regarding what has been happening:

So, don't take this personal. But please follow the previous links to learn how wikipedia works. Or you can start here. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Issue solved, I have been reading how Wikipedia works after your notice, it is correct what you said, I am new here, I think I have very much to say on this matter. It would be wise if we stop this misunderstanding and I authorize you to delete both yours and my sayings in the page of dispute. Regarding the articles, they are from many sources.Frederic Lacroix,Raul Rey Balmaceda,Enrique Campos Menendez, Perito Moreno, Barros Arana,, and many others that are in the history book of Patagonia Chilena which only one sorce I give, since inside the book you will find all the sources to affirm this matter. The Northern territory of Patagonia in Chile starts in Valdivia and that is stated in the History book I mention.--Jaimesaid (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we can understand better now. I'll delete the "copypaste" of this discussion from the talk page of the article, but not the previous discussion, as I didn't took back my preventions regarding some of your edits (may I say, fundamentally regarding style and just a few -but nevertheless important- substantive issues). Later on, I'll be back to discuss those disagreements there. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the flags
The purpose of the flags was to illustrate the global support. Which section of the MoS is it against to list them? Veriss (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Against using national emblems for private endeavours. Obviously, corporate interest cannot be considered truly national either. --IANVS (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * which section? You just undid a lot of work without discussing it with me.  I had a good reason to use the flags.  Veriss (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And now the citations are incorrect. Veriss (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Where? Here: Manual of Style (icons). And I don't know what citations do you refer to. --IANVS (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say you cannot use a flag as I have in the article to illustrate global participation. I saw nothing prohibiting use with a corporation. Please explain or revert the edits. Veriss (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Corporations mentioned in "Corporate" subsection are not "national" but private. Using flags in this context is an abuse to my best understanding. The same regarding private participations. MOS advises against exaggerating nationalistic references. And this is such a case. To illustrate "globality", you don't need those flags. --IANVS (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any prohibition about using a flag in association with a private 'anything'. Please quote or link the subsection you refer to. You undid a lot of effort with a click.  I want to see what proscribes it.  Veriss (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From Manual of Style (icons):


 * "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles"; without the flag next to him, he looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles". Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy."


 * Private corporations and individuals fit into this description. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please fix the citations. I spent hours on those sections and the citations were perfect before you jumped into it. You could have left a note on my talk page to fix it in cooperation but you did it your way. Veriss (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I don't know what citations you are referring to. --IANVS (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (the message I was replying to was deleted) Thanks for the spirit of cooperation and AGF.  I'm done, enjoy.  Veriss (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse my former message, I thought you were talking about the edits. But I don't still know what the citations you say really are. I compared editions, but I don't find the citations lost in the way. But maybe I'm understanding everything all the way around. Excuse if that is the case. --IANVS (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remove that section from the talk page, people are already losing interest in contributing to the article. If you look, I'm the only one to add any real content in over 24 hours.  I don't need negativity and drama on the talk page to drive even more away or it'll just be me left and the odd proofreader.  You have permission to delete my response along with it.  Veriss (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't erase it because that was the justification of my edit. It is not drama. And nobody "goes away" in WP for edit discussions. I really don't get what is it with you. And please tell me: What are the citations lost? I didn't erase a single one of them, as far as I can tell. maybe you are a little bit over-involved. Hope you are fine, --IANVS (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was done with the flags because I hate arguing and also because I had already worked out a different way to use them...then you posted it there. Opening up new fronts is not a way to encourage cooperation. I won't discuss it in two locations at once. Ciao Veriss (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I needed to justify my controversial edit on the talk page, of course. And I told you to continue there, so let's finish this thread here for good. The rest of your message, I don't get it. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident Translator slavery!
Thank you from all of us! Veriss (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * P/S: While we had a disagreement, it does not take away from the hard work you and the other linguists did for the article. Veriss (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Veriss. I don't think I really deserve it, but I appreciate your gesture ;) --IANVS (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on White Argentine
Hola, soy Pablo Zeta, el que está ampliando el artículo White Argentine. Ví que le hiciste algunos arreglos menores en los enlaces. Quisiera saber tu opinión sobre el artículo; si su tenor te parece correcto, si te parece que tiene algún defecto o carencia, o cualquier propuesta que se te ocurra para mejorarlo.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ¿Qué tal, Pablo? Es enorme el trabajo que te estás tomando, y muy completo por lo que ví. Te felicito. En otro momento le daré una lectura más detenida a ver si se me ocurren comentarios. Por lo pronto, lo que estuve viendo (que no haya ya editado o taggeado) me pareció de lo más bien. Hasta pronto nomás! --IANVS (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirchner (bilingual explanation)
Hi. Let me explain what happened. I have dialup connection only (MetConnect) and by the time the edits I made got through there was loss of data due to overlap. I tried to correct but it was too late. I have some small edits to make but I will wait until the traffic slows down. Again any removal of data was unintentional. Sincerely, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hola. Déjame explicar lo que sucedió. My servicio de internet (MetConnect) es muy, muy lento, y como resultado, la última vez que yo traté de hacer los cambios, SIN QUERER borré las ediciones mas nuevas que se habían hecho mientras yo you estaba esperando que los cambios míos se los cambios se realizaran. No es caso de vandalismo. (¿Qué tal mi español? Hace mucho que lo he usado en forma escrita.) Sinceramente, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I know it was unintentional, hence my apologies. Nevertheless, it is better this way. Maybe you can try further, quicker, edits section by section. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Muy bueno tu español, por cierto. Saludos, --IANVS (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Néstor Kirchner

 * Thank you very much, MBelgrano. I really appreaciate it. What a day it's been today. Abrazo, --IANVS (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 ecuador crisis
the page seems to have been quite, but a majority (consensus) with coherent arguemetn seems to advocate a page move. Should we go ahead with it?Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirchner
lo que hay que ver es si kirchner en efecto contaba oficialmente con el apellido de la madre. yo tengo dos apellidos aunque no sea oficialmente requerido.--camr nag 19:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Supongo que, con sólo comprobar cómo figura su nombre en los registros oficiales (durante su presidencia, por ejemplo), podemos estar seguros de si usaba el apellido de su madre o no. Salud, --IANVS (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in White Argentine talk page.
Solo quería agradecerte por tu intervención en la página de discusión de White Argentine. Tal vez así este usuario deje de poner palos en la rueda; digo "este" porque aunque usa muchas IP distintas, creo que es la misma persona. Igual, una parte de mí me dice que esta es una charla con un sordo, porque él no deja de buscarle la quinta pata al gato. Vuelvo a decirte muchas gracias por tu aporte.--Pablozeta (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * De nada. Por cierto, se puede copiar algo de cómo está desarrollada la introducción del artículo White American. Reconocer que: 1) White Argentine is an umbrella term including various distinct ethnicities (colectividades) as well as their mix; 2) stating that this is not a term in legal/official use, nor in common use, in Argentina; but that it is the most common umbrella definition in eng-lang sources; 3) that it comes to be a relevant definiton (i.e. over "criollo") only after the massive and diverse migration of the 19th and 20th centuries. That would put the article in proper context. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we ask for semi-protection of the article?
Hola, IANVS, disculpá que te vuelva a molestar, pero el usuario anónimo que aparece en White Argentine insiste e insiste con poner las plantillas de investigación original y falta de neutralidad una y otra vez. Ya ni se molesta en seguir la discusión en la talk page; directamente pone las plantillas de prepo. Esto va camino a ser una guerra de ediciones, y creo que nadie quiere eso -excepto él-. Las últimas dos veces fué el mismo usuario seguro, porque las IP coinciden. Qué te parece si pido -o pedimos- semiprotección para la página? Así lo obligaríamos a crear una cuenta, y si sigue insistiendo mucho hasta podríamos pedir su bloqueo temporario (Esto en el último de los casos, por supuesto). No se me ocurre otra cosa, por ahí a vos te surge otra idea. Es una pena porque en estos últimos dos o tres días, los breves ratos que podría dedicar a expandir el artículo los he tenido que desperdiciar en esta discusión estéril; la verdad que esto desgasta un poco. Gracias por tu atención de nuevo.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, if the anonymous user comes back to edit war, without continuing the discussion with further arguments nor seeking consensus, then we should ask for semi-protection, at least to force the editor to register himself and make it clear that he is not multiple users. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Amendments on White Argentine
Hola, IANVS. Por favor fijate qué te parece la sección Usage of the term, a ver si con eso paramos la guerra de ediciones. En la sección Estimates tengo un problema con una referencia que queda mal, y no sé cómo arreglarlo, por favor ayudame. Muchas gracias por tus sugerencias y tu ayuda--Pablozeta (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC).


 * i like it. I made some more editions on it. Now, I think we maybe should summarize in a line at the intro some of this sections. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo. The unknown user got mad; did you see all the changes he made in a few hours? Now he attacks the sports and music section. The section of rock may be somehow long, but in the Sports section I only specified what collectivity brought what sport, and lists of sportsmen of European descent. This can't wait, I will have to ask for the semi-protection of the article. Please, if you can, fix the defectous link in the Estimates section; I don't know how to fix it myself. Thanks for your contributions.--Pablozeta (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, ask for the protection. I simply reverted his last edits. Now, if he has made some sensible improvement we'll simply re-add it. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, the guy attacked again, but he did many changes in three different times, so I couldn't undo all his changes all at once. I keep a version of the article every time I edit it, so I could restore my last version. I redid some of your edits, but some may have been lost. I already asked for protection. I'll try to apeace the guy in the talk page tomorrow, but this is getting worse and worse.--Pablozeta (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again. I left a message for the anon user in the talk page; if you can, check it. I offered the guy to make some amendments and to add some sections to the article once the protection expires. Tell me if you agree.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, IANVS. Primero quiero decirte que agradezco muchísimo tu apoyo en la talk page del artículo; por momentos me sentí luchando solo contra los molinos de viento, pero ver que alguien me apoya es reconfortante. Igual te digo que no puedo creer los detalles tontos que estos tipos buscan para joder con el artículo; es evident que le están buscando la quinta pata al gato. Yo quisiera saber si harían lo mismo con "White American" y "White Latin American" también; seguro que de las talk page los sacan a patadas en el traste, que vayan a jorobar a otro lado.

¿Hay una página de ayuda para crear esas listas? ¿Qué nombre me sugerís que le ponga, "List of White Argentines"? ¿o "Argentines of European descent"?

Estoy viendo de poder comprar ese libro de LLC Books que tiene "White Argentines" en el título; tal vez haya listas de personas en él, y con eso podría referenciar la inclusión de muchas de las personas que nombro en el artículo. ¿Vos qué opinás? Muchas gracias por todo.--Pablozeta (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I requested for mediation
I requested for mediation, if you agree, go and sign here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Argentine--Pablozeta (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

White Argentine might be doomed
Hola, IANVS. Estos tipos se adueñaron del artículo y lo están cortando en pedacitos. Quieren borrar mapas, buscan cualquier detalle insignificante para ver qué más le pueden sacar; parecen lobos cebados por la sangre. Yo estoy tratando de comprar el libro con listas de White Argentines, pero vivo en un pueblito a 126 km de Buenos Aires y se me complica para conseguirlo rápido. Voy a dejar que hagan con el artículo lo que quieran, porque total tengo el texto fuente de mi última versión guardado en Word, así que lo puedo restaurar todo de un solo saque. Una vez que tenga el libro, voy a ver cuáles argentinos puedo seguir incluyendo en el archivo. Cuando agregaba los nombres siempre fui cuidadoso de seleccionar argentinos cuyo fenotipo fuera indudablemente caucásico; juro que no sabía nada de eso de la BLP policy. Igual se nota que estos tipos están nada más que para joder, porque ví sus historiales de contribuciones y no han creado ningún artículo; esos no hacen más que andar por las talk pages jodiendo el trabajo ajeno. Muchas gracias por tus consejos y apoyo.

Una sola cosa más, ¿qué opinión tenés de la Metapedia? --Pablozeta (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - Please speak English as this is the English wikipedia and especially when you attack other contributors as such comments may need to be reported. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ''Hello, IANVS. These guys took over the article and they are cutting it into pieces. They want to delete maps, looking for any insignificant detail to see what else they can take it off, look like wolves fed by blood. I am trying to buy the book with lists of White Argentines, but I live in a small town 126 kilometers from Buenos Aires and it's complicated to me to get the book fast. I will let them do any thing they want with the article, because I have the full source text of my last version saved in Word, so that I can restore it all by a single kick. When I have the book, I will see what Argentines I can continue to include in the article. When I was added the names, I was always careful to select Argentine with a phenotype undoubtedly Caucasian; I swear I don't knew nothing of that of the BLP policy. Anyway, it's clear that these guys are only to "fuck", because I saw their records of contributions and have not created any article, these guys don't do nothing but walking around talk pages screwing other people's work. Thank you very much for your advice and support.
 * One more thing, what do you think about Metapedia?. (A tentative translation for Pablozeta message, apologize for mistakes: --79.25.114.193 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC))


 * Joder, in Argentine Spanish is not "fuck" but "molest". Very good Spanish, BTW. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Joder in spanish means: 1.- to fuck; 2.- to disturb. 3.- to destroy, ruin, spoil. Used to express anger, irritation, surprise.--79.3.232.231 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then, "disturb" and "spoil" are the best translations. I would even add "annoy". Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:White Hispanic and Latino Americans
It's not edit warring to undo indefinitely blocked users. That IP is User:M5891. But if you'd like to know more concerning the substance, it's in the talk page's archives. SamEV (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re 'White Argentine' mediation
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#.27Requests_for_mediation.2FWhite_Argentine.27:_Party_not_accepted_mediation_within_7_days —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, IANVS. I don't know if you read the message from this guy Andy, and I really don't know if all users involved in the dispute MUST agree for mediation for it to be accepted. I added your name in the request for you were highly active in the talk page, but if you don't want to be involved in it, please answer me in my talk page, and I'll remove you from the list of users, so mediation can proceed. BTW, Andy the Grump seems to be eager to disect the article in thinner slices. Meanwhile, I'm in the process of buying the book with lists of White Argentines, so I can reference all the names of the article; but I'll have it in my hands in at least 60 days' time.--Pablozeta (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the remainder about the mediation. I almost wasn't here in WP at all in these days. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re supposed vandalism in 'White Argentine' article
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of merge templates
Can you explain why you are warring to remove these good faith templates from the article? Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge is unsubstantiated and has not been discussed nor even proposed at talk page until now. --IANVS (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the article talkpage, your lucky I didn't see you I would have warned and reported you at the 3RRNB. You have no right to remove any templates. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was removing vandalism, aside from the templates. The edit warring was intiated by IP guy. Try to look the other side, also. --IANVS (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No you were not, there is no excuse for those edits, if you think there is an you repeat such a pattern I will report you and you will see how there is no excuse. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, we disagree. Have a good day. --IANVS (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your edits at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Argentine
IANVS, regarding your recent edits to Requests for mediation/White Argentine, can you please not insert your comments into the middle of other peoples. As I've already stated, this is against Wikipedia standards, and makes it difficult to see who wrote what when, as well as disrupting the logical flow of comments.

In any case, this page is not an appropriate place for continuing the debate on the article. The primary issues need to be summarised there, in order for mediators to see what the issue is. They will not want to have to read through endless comment and response to find out. Furthermore, spreading debate over different pages is unlikely to improve communication. I feel we are beginning to make progress towards reaching a consensus, and the article talk place is the logical place to continue this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediators need a summary of the answers to your observations. I'll start a new section as a response. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried, but I'm sorry. It is far more readable this way. You should know there is not WP standard regarding these, BTW. I do hope we can reach a consensus soon. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding inserting edits into others contributions in talk pages, the relevent standard is here Talk page guidelines. Regarding 'interruptions' it says "In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic...". Your 'comments' are longer than my 'contributions', and are neither a reply to a minor point, nor introducing a subheading. You also have to clearly indicate with a template when you do this.


 * In any case, I repeat what I said earlier, the page is not intended for continued debate. It needs only to indicate what issues are under contention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Admixture white hispanics
Autosomal studies which measure the levels of ancestry of a group or person have concluded the maximum of European ancestry in the Hispanic population in the U.S is lower then 67% European, how can any white Hispanic be more then 67% European when the maximum amount of European ancestry lower then 67%?--ChineseNygirl (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that the media of the sample of a whole population, does not imply that a part of it has a similar media? --IANVS (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

All admixture studies are studies of a minor part of the overall popualtion, it is impossible to study every person, are u going to remove every admixture test?. The study was a comprehensive study of the southwestern U.S. It is impossible to study every person of a popaultion. Autosomal studies which measure the levels of ancestry of a group or person have concluded the maximum of European ancestry in the Hispanic popualtaion is lower then 67% European how can white Hispanics be more then 67% European?--ChineseNygirl (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The study was carried on a sample of all Hispanics. White Hispanics are a part of that entire population. Then, the reasoning applies: the media for the entire population is not the media of a part of that entire population. You seem to believe that the study determined that no hispanic at all has more than 67% euro ancestry. Well, the same apply to any specific sub-group of that study, specially a sub-group characterized by its white phenotype. Doyou understand it now? Your interpretation, by the way, and even in the case it was right, is WP:Original Research. Have a good day, --IANVS (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

White Hispanics constitute the majority of that population not just part of it, if you conduct a study of a group of people and most self ID as white and the most white are lower then 67% European then it is self evident that white Hispanics are lower then 67% European. Further more this was a autosomal study which measures the ratio of ancestry in a group, in hispanics the most European are lowe than 67% thus any white Hispanic is 67% and lower European. I never said all hispanics are less then 67% European i said the average Hispanic(who are white) in the U.S is less than 67% European--ChineseNygirl (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are incurring into WP:Original research, plus you've violated several times WP:3RR. Stop edit warring and discuss at the article's talk page. Good bye, --IANVS (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You have provdied no evidence to disprove the geneticist Bernardo Bertoni findings

Autosomal studies on the non hispanic white American population conclude non hispanic white Americans are between 70%-90+ European, only 8% of non hispanic white Americans are 70%-79% European despite the fact only 8% of non hispanic white Americans are 70%-79% European the autosomal test was able to pick it up because thats what autosomal studies do they measure the ratio of ancestry of a whole group. Autosomal studies on the hispanic population of the U.S (most of whom are white concluded) that the maximum of European ancestry is lower then 67%, which means any white Hispanic in the U.S (with the exception of dominicans, puerto ricans and cubans who reach as high as 90+ European) would have to be lower than 67% European because lower than 67% is the maximum of European ancestry in the Hispanic population of the U.S according to autosmal test carred out by the geneticist Bernardo Bertoni. If there were singicant number of Hispanics who were above 67% European it would have showed up in the autosomal study, the same way it showed up only 8% of the non hispanic popualtion of the U.S is 70%-90%+ European.

Answer me this question if white Hispanics in the U.S (mostly Mexican) are above 67% European then why did it not show up in the autosmal test? and why did it show up in the autosmal test that Hispanics ( many of whom are white) of dominican, puerto rican and cuban descent reach as high as 90+ European?--ChineseNygirl (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the results of Mr Bertoni's study explicitly states that "White Hispanics" have less than 67% Euro ascendancy? No. Then you are incurring into WP:original research. Ok? Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a study of the overall Hispanic popualtion of the U.S (most of whom are white) it measured the overall European ancestry of Hispanics in the U.S and concluded the maximum of European ancestry is lower then 67%. Any white Hispanic in the U.S is 67% or lower European because autosomal studies carried out by Bertoni conlclude that 67% is the maximum of European ancestry of Hispanics in the U.S. Are you denying that autosmal tests measure the overall ancestry of a popualtion? --ChineseNygirl (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, it was a study of the overall population. 67% is the maximum for the overall population. Your derivation of these proportions to a part of the entire population is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, apart from being statistically wrong. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with you. I hope you come back after your block has expired.  I know it can be hard sometimes, but it's always better to take the high road when dealing with editors using WP:Point who just don't get it.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

admixture studies
All admixture studies are based on testing a minor part of a popaultion, so unless your going to remove every single admixture test then you point is meaningless. Your average no hispanic white American is 90+ European that figure was got it by testing a small part of the white American population, are going to remove that? No i dont think so--ChineseNygirl (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I answered what is relevant in the last thread. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring block
You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru  (talk)  20:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am on your side
How hard it is to show the world that we Hispanics are not a mestizo ethnicity, but that there are large parts of us who are of almost pure European descent. WP seems to be full of anti-white guys. I just want to tell you that I support your struggle for an impartial point of view, which WP is beginning to lose. Besides, I want to tell you that I have my last version of "White Argentine" saved in source text, and I published it in Metapedia -where the word "white" is not a dirty word- and I am improving it there. I already added a section dealing with the Myth of White Argentina, demonstrating that it is false in degree, but true in essence. As soon as I have the book, I will restore the photo collage of the infobox and will referenciate all the names in the article.--Pablozeta (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Pablozeta, but do you know Metapedia is just an Neo-Nazi site of negationism and anti-sionist propoganda?--79.25.114.141 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pablozeta, I'd check your republication of the Wikipedia article in Metapedia doesn't breach copyright. You might also do well to consider whether Metapedia's definition of 'white' coincides with yours: you may well discover that it doesn't. Indeed, you could even find that by their standards, you may not be 'white' yourself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

IANVS, I also want to tell you my moral support. Those topics are not something I really have much knowledge about as to improve things beyond what was already done, but I think you are a valuable editor and hope for your soon return. MBelgrano (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning White Argentine, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

I requested for mediation in Mediation Cabal
I requested for another type of mediation. I copied and pasted all comments of all users involved in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-24/White_Argentine. Besides, Andy the Grump now goes for deletion (see my talk page). To avoid intrusion in our communications, and to prepare a better strategy to defend the article, wouldn't you consider giving me your e-mail address? I will give mine if you agree.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a neo-Nazi at all, believe me.
Maybe you've been very bussy in real life, but the lack of reply to my last message makes me think that you maybe disapprove my copying White Argentine in Metapedia. To explain my reasons, I just quote here my talk to user MBelgrano, and his reply. Believe me I'm not a neo-Nazi.


 * ''I swear that Metapedia was not my first option, but so far it is the only site that has respected my work, and not simply criticized it mercilessly. You don't know how hard I worked trying to referenciate every statement, data or figure of White Argentine, and keeping it neutral; and those three hungry wolves appeared and began to disect it in thin slices based on technicalities. I didn't even know there was a BLP policy; I really thought that if someone had a Caucasian phenotype, there was no problem labelling him White. Concerning my non-support on racist hatred, I just cite myself here: Razas del Mundo The site is still in formation, for I found new sources, and I am still collecting and processing the data, but in the third paragraph you'll read my thinking on the matter.--Pablozeta (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * About Metapedia, I'm aware that you are simply taking advantage of the free space at their wiki, not as a steady editor, but just to keep a different copy of the article and work with it. Although I don't support the project, I don't think either that stealing or cheating nazis would be really something morally wrong. I even vandalize that site from time to time... In any case, it's not the topic wikipedia should be concerned about. Even if you hadn't copied the article there, someone else from the site would have done so at some other moment, the free licence allows and even encourages that. I'm used to find the things I wrote here at other places, even parts of my work at the Spanish article of the May Revolution are hanging at the walls of the UBA MBelgrano (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)''

--Pablozeta (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation case opened
I have now opened the mediation case. Feel free to comment here. MikeNicho231 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition at FLRC
nominated List of states with limited recognition for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  Night w   15:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Felices Fiestas
I just wanted to wish you Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thanks for everything. You are one of the few kind people I've found here in this wikipedia.--Pablozeta (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)}


 * Gracias, Pablo. ¡Felicidades para vos también! --IANVS (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG and Argentine cities template
From WP:MOSFLAG

Accompany flags with country names ''The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, although first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached by in-article links rather than read sequentially. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size. ''

I cannot understand your claim that you cannot see the conflict. I didn't cast any doubt on the fact of which province these cities are in, but made those facts accesssible to the vast majority of the world's population who are not familiar with sub-national vexilology. Kevin McE (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is just a matter of readability. The links were there for anyone to follow. Anyway, I re-added the flags and links, while preserving the full names of the Provinces. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Just" readability? As though that doesn't matter muc in an encyclopaedia...  But yes, if you want to add flags for pointless decoration alongside the names of the provinces I won't object.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo Caption
Slight amendment to your caption, supported by the source I believe. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Now, do you really believe that to be relevant? I don't. Salut --IANVS (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well actually yes I do, please refer to the history of the article, where you will find I had to defend the inclusion of that image. I do find your qualification that they weren't in public office unnecessary and in respect of Nestor actually untrue - see the cite.  Do you agree to removing it, noting the source doesn't actually support it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the source, Néstor had jkust resigned his office as chief of Santa Cruz Social Security. The clarification is needed, because it is not the same a private opinion than a public stance. There were no public office responsibility in any of these. And that is why the comment is actually irrelevant. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not going to edit war over it, though I consider it utterly superfluous. It comes across as excusing their stance, though I doubt that was your intention.  If that's what you want, then fine.  Wee Curry Monster talk 01:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to excuse. A popular referendum was held and both affirmative and opposing opinions were legitimate. BTW, Rafael Flores actually says that he recalls the Kirchners opposed the treaty (in line with most of the Justicialist Party at that time), but that Néstor himself did not campaign against the Treaty, and remained indifferent, because "I (Rafael Flores) was leading the campaing and Néstor would never bandwagon on other's idea". You see: the comment did not mention any "voting", and it is sourced on a third party POV. This is not the kind of sources we need to avoid violating WP:BLP. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears the point is going over your head, no matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's nothing. I was just explaining why I had removed the original phrase in the first place. Salut, be well. --IANVS (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

UNASUR maps
Hi, can you please stop reverting the addition of the maps? The Falklands as much as we want them to be South American they are not. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1st) They are in South America (geographically); 2nd) their status is disputed (See: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) 3rd) UNASUR and its member countries all recognise the disputed status of the islands, and officialy deny recognition to the govermnet of the islands (which is deemed to be "illegal"). That has to be stated in an article (and a map) about UNASUR. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hispanicos y demás...
Oye chico, tengo varios amigos Argentinos que se vinieron a España hace unos años, por ellos sé que los Argentinos antes de llegar a España teneis una visión muy "Latina" de España, y cuando llegais aquí no os encontrais con lo que esperabais. al igual que unos cuantos, al entrar en el artículo inglés de "hispanos y latinos" y ver que nos incluían a los españoles... casi me caigo de la silla... la verdad, no sé que pensar, una vez leí un artículo que decía que la Unión Europea era inviable por que somos muy diferentes culturalmente, yo creo que en América todo el mundo cree que somos super diferentes, y en serio, te bastaría con vivir aquí 2 meses para darte cuenta que en Europa, sí, hay muchas lenguas, pero culturas, la europea del norte y la europea del sur, está claro que en cada región hay cosas típicas queen otra no lo son, en Galicia tocamos la Gaita, igual que en irlanda o escocia, en italia hacen pasta, igual que en España, cosa que no se hace en luxemburgo... vaya, que me lío, lo que quiero decir es que dejeis de ver a España como un país latinoamericano, por que es una versión más de la cultura latina de europa, una versión más como italia o francia, que conquistó a unos pueblos que estaban en américa que ya tenían su propia cultura, nosotros no fuimos a dar la nuestra, solo a influenciar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayuk (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * y sin ánimo de ofender... tienes una visión de España muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuy distorsionada... en serio, leyendo tu respuesta me asombro cada vez más, debeis pensar que esto es México 2.0... pero bueno, nos lo tenemos merecido, vendemos la imagen turística de que España es sol playa y flamenco y la gente se cree que todo el país es así... cuando solo lo es huelva y sevilla... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayuk (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Me agregué al Wikiprojecto Argentina
Hi, IANVS. I added myself to the project; I offer to translate and/or expand articles on Argentine musicians, singers, songwriters and bands. Maybe you can provide me a link to a list of requested articles. Thanks and Happy New Year.--Pablozeta (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Propuesta para pedir modificación de la política sobre BPV, pero todos juntos.
Hola gente: Dadas las recientes y actuales guerras de ediciones que se han desatado en los artículos White Argentine, White Mexican, White Latin American y otros similares, debido a la modificación de la ´política sobre biografía de personas vivas concerniente a etnicidad -que los usuarios Andy the Grump y GiovBag quieren implementar a rajatabla en todos los artículos- propongo:

Solicitar en el Noticeboard correspondiente -aún no sé cuál sería, pero seguro que hay uno- que se revean los alcances de tal política. Creo que todos estaremos de acuerdo que nadie podría afirmar "Ronald Reagan era un Afro-estadounidense" porque tal afirmación salta a la vista como falsa. O también que nadie podría afirmar "Juan Manuel Fangio era de ascendencia croata" cuando es bien sabido que sus padres eran italianos. Pero creo que debe ser revisado que no se pueda categorizar a una persona como "blanco" cuando esté bien referenciada su ascendencia europea y comprobado con una fotografía su fenotipo caucásico.

Bueno, contáctenme a ver que les parece esta propuesta. De ser positiva su respuesta, debemos hacerla todos juntos, para que tenga más fuerza. Gracias por su atención.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Defense of White Argentine
Hi, sorry to bother you, but Andy the Grump and other user want to move for deletion of White Argentine. Please, if you agree that it should not be deleted, add your comment in the article's talk page. Thanks for your attention and help.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Help Stopping the Deletion of White Argentine
If you agree that it should not be deleted, please add your arguments here.--Pablozeta (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

La Suerte de White Argentine
Esto ya se lo pregunté a otro usuario, y también te lo pregunto a vos porque me parece que vos tenés más experiencia que yo en estas lides. Quisiera saber qué pensás que puede pasar con White Argentine. La verdad es que estoy muy desanimado y desilusionado sobre Wikipedia; acá hay un montón de racistas a la inversa, anti-blancos. Me había anotado en el Wikiprojecto Argentina, y pensaba traducir varios artículos de la WP hispana al inglés; pero viendo toda esta mala onda, no me dan ganas de colaborar en nada más. Por ahí voy ya estás acostumbrado a esto, y es una raya más para el tigre, pero yo no estoy acostumbrado a pelear por cada punto o cada coma. Desde ya te pido disculpas por lo del "canvassing" porque realmente yo no sabía que mis mensajes se podían considerar así, ni que eso estaba prohibido. Te felicito porque lo pusiste en su lugar al italiano con lo del "wikilawyering".--Pablozeta (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and goodbye... for now.
I sincerely thank your for your support in defense of White Argentine, but it was not enough. This site is invaded by intelectualoid scum (Andy the Grump, GiovBag, etc.) so I'll move for greener pastures. I'll concentrate my efforts in my own website Razas del Mundo, and I won't waste them here where they are not considered valuable. Thanks for everything, you have made my Wiki-experience a little less forgettable.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the support. I'm aware of my limitations, but I try to do the best work I can MBelgrano (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank.. you! You are one of the best (integral) wikipedians I met during my stay here. Salut, then! --IANVS (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thank you very much for defending and fixing Argentines of European descent. I cannot believe how much controversy is caused by this topic/article.--Pablozeta (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Martín García (1814) and Project Military History
(Message also copied to User:DagosNavy and User:MBelgrano) I have noticed (not for the first time), there is very little input into the Project Military History from our side. Of our battles (Independence and Civil War) one of the best articles we have to offer is Battle of Martín García (1814). Somebody (don't know who) had reviewed it and found it lacking. I did most of the translation from es:wp. I'd love to hear your input and see what we can do to get more of South American military history into a more prominent display at MilHist. Please don't discuss here but better at the article's talk page so we can keep all the comments together. -- Alexf(talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration
Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Major changes in Argentines of European descent
Hi, IANVS. I ask you to help me persuade GiovBag not to make major changes in the article before seeking consensus. I reverted his arbitrary changes twice today. I dont want to violate 3RR, and I think he needs to see that we are many who support the article as it is. It may need addition of sections not amputation of paragraphs, sources or photos.--Pablozeta (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Argentines of European descent. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

It is simple. Am just try to help you to save this article, neutralizing some things, but you don't listen a word. If you make the same thing, than White Argentine, but changing the name, the article, sooner or later, will be deleted. In fact, you never responded to the observation, even your reasons strengthened my arguments. The other is just not want to acknowledge an obvious fact. --GiovBag (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, it doesn't matter if you "are right". This is to be discussed at the talk page. And, by the way, you are pretty cynical, warning me of 3RR after half a dozen reversal on your part since yesterday. --IANVS (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have left a message for you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ARGENTINO
JAJAJAJAJJAJAJAA Argentino tenias que ser, que os creeis todos Arios Italianos (cuando los italiuanos son mas negros que los españoles, pero bueno, la ignorancia es extrema en America), ala, sigue pensando que España es Mejico, aun que a mi me de rabia, que me la da, al ver que unos extranjeruchos tienen mas potestad que yo para definir a mi pais, sigue pensando que Argentina es Italia y que España es sudamerica pero en Europa... es que de verdad, que igggggggggnorante. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.158.37 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ¿? --IANVS (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Participate in White Latin American's AfD
Hi, how are you? Please, participate in this discussion by adding your opinion and arguments why it should be kept, or why it should not. --Pablozeta (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, contribute with your comment.
There a AfD in progress here which I think you may find interesting; if you want, add your opinion whether it should be kept or deleted. Thanks.--Rusoargentino (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)