User talk:Al-Andalus

Hello, Al-Andalus. You have new messages at Nomoskedasticity's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Archives

1 - 2

Before posting: a bit about Al-Andalus

He's been contributing to the Wiki project since mid 2004. He is an Aussie by birth, and a flag-carrying one at that. He has affectionately been called a mutt due to his ethno-religious origins. He's been to every continent on the face of the earth. He is fluent in several world languages.

While he does have, and has never denied having, strong opinions and views of his own (as you may already know) which might be considered contraversial by some - perhaps even "horrifying" if in stark opposition to the mainstream political or other mantra of any of the ethnic and/or religious communities he was born into - he does contribute to the Wiki project independant of said opinions and views. He may even contribute content going against his views, if that is what fact supports, while still maintaining his right to personally dissent in the belief of said fact.

He recognises everyone's freedom of speech and thought, and recognises every person's value as a human being.

TALK PAGE CONTENT

Click here to leave me a new message.

Changes

Your continual non-consultative and deceptive changes to the image disappoint me. Timeshift (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

S-G

You've already hit an effective 3RR through reversions. Please hit the talk page instead of reverting again. Michael ^talk 05:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported. Michael ^talk 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 fortnight in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nelson's response to apology

Your contribution about the reasons Nelson's response was controversial, was important, see discussion. Can you find a source which summarises the controversial content, to use as a reference?--Funkarama (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Cantor_Joseph_Cysner.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cantor_Joseph_Cysner.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Generations

I care about what the sources say, not some political agenda. And if you have any more insults, please keep them off my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese people

If that other fellow continuously vandalizes the page can you please let me know. I have reviewed the recent history and can see that an anonymous user as well as someone trying to smear the article with Arabist propaganda have been causing problems. We should remove the photo of Moussa al-Sadr and Michel Aoun as it's not about politics, would you agree? Take care!

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

El Sombrero Award

		El Sombrero Barnstar Award
		You deserve this award for contributing to content of interest to the Latinos WikiProject. Outstanding contributions are generally about articles pertaining to Latinos and/or Hispanics in the United States as well as articles about Latin America. LatinoMuslim 02:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Map-Hispanic countries.png

Why doesn't Equatorial Guinea show up on File:Map-Hispanic countries.png? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Chile

Hola, aclarando algunos puntos no omitiré aseveraciones personales sobre lo que piense o no de Chile u otro país latinoamericano. Wikipedia no es un foro ni tampoco una fuente primaria para elaborar nuestras propias tesis.

por consiguiente, recibes advertencias constantemente por tus intervenciones caprichosas y segadas sobre artículos etnograficos de todos los países lo que te valió un total de 6 bloqueos hasta el momento, lo mío son correciones simples la primera por citar a la embajada de Rusia, en una fuente la cual hacia referencia al censo de Uruguay y Chile. La segunda por citar "cóndor travel" una web que daba apreciaciones ligeras sobre los países pero nada más, lo cual fue un complemento de la misma.

Volviendo al tema etnografico de Chile, la referencia cual se cita de la estructura racial dice claramente 30% de blancos caucásicos, 65% de mestizos de predominancia blanca (eso no es más que castizos) los mestizos tradicionales no tienen aspecto blanco es más, se acercan más al fenotipo amerindio en la mayoría de los casos. Lo mismo en el caso de la CIA (White and White-Amerindian), claramente dice blancos y mestizos.

Ahora respondiendo a tu pregunta si conozco Chile?, soy un conocedor de Latinoamérica y también de los temas etnograficos de dicha región acá te dejaré algunos artículos que te aclararan un poco porque el tema castizo de Chile lo diferencia con otros países "mestizos" de la región como Paraguay, Colombia, etc.

• 1°Al parecer tienes que leer este name=> estudio. Dice que en las clases medias cual representa el (40% de la poblacion chilena), hay 23.7% de sangre amerindia (o sea, 'castizos'), mientras hay 37.1% de sangre amerindia (3/8) en las clases inferiores. En las clases medias altas y superiores, la mezcla amerindia no sobrepasa 12.5%. La población chilena incluyendo todas las clases sociales no tiene más de un 25% de mezcla amerindia y 75% europea. La mayoría de los chilenos son 'castizos' no mestizos.

• 2°En los estudios de los tres principales genetistas de Chile (Spotorno, Rothhammer, Valenzuela), todos de la Universidad de Chile, se concuerda en el texto "Cultura e identidad étnica" (rev. médica de ciencia) un 30 % de la poblacion tiene bajo o nulo aporte Amerindio y un 5% es mayoritariamente Amerindia, con minimo o nulo aporte Europeo. Esta revista, de circulación limitada, tiene muchas de sus publicaciones en scielo.cl donde aparecen una serie de artículos sobre mestizaje, identidad y adelantos en los análisis de genética humana. Se supone que en los próximos años ya habría mayor certeza en lo relativo a los procesos de mezcla en América (incluyendo Norteamérica) En ese sentido, la antropología genética ha estudiado poblaciones específicas en todo Chile con resultados dispares. Sim embargo, lo que se podría homologar con el promedio de mezcla en el mestizo fenotípico (65% de la población) cuyo promedio se aproxima al 70% europeo/ 30% indígena según estudios de Spotorno y la Universidad de Chile que es más especifica la cual divide la población chilena en un 30% de blancos caucásicos, un 65% de mestizos de predominancia blanca ( castizos) y un 5% de indígenas name=> Estructura racial.

• 3°En Chile no hay una división racial estructurada, no se puede calificar de "mestizo" a secas porque esa palabra tiene una connotación cultural. O sea, al hablar de "mestizo" no se habla de la mezcla racial en algún grado sino que básicamente de la mezcla entre amerindios y europeos en una contribución similar (puede ser 50-50, 55-45). Si quieres ver la dimensión práctica del término mestizo, los norteamericanos tienen una cantidad de trabajos enormes sobre el tema y voy a tratar de recuperar algunos que revisé tiempo atrás para mandárlos.

• 4°Ahora revisando la composición étnica de Argentina da una mayoria del 88% a la población caucásica. Mientras que investigaciones genéticas realizadas sobre individuos seleccionados al azar, han detectado algún legado hereditario indígena en más del 56% de la población de Argentina. name=> Estructura genética de la Argentina. esto se explica porque se hace referencia el fenotipo, mismo punto que te recalco.

Eso es desde la visión genética (genotipo) de la población chilena, la cual según todas las fuentes "conocidas" consultadas seria mayoritariamente de origen castizo.

Ahora desde fuentes que miden principalmente los fenotipos de las poblaciones podemos determinar los siguientes resultados:

• 5°La CIA junta a casi la totalidad de la población chilena (95%) en blancos y mestizos name=> www.bartleby.com

• 6°Otro estudio más específicos como el elaborado por la UNAM (2005) da un 52,7% para los blancos en Chile name=> Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI.

• 7°Esteva-Fabregat daría más de un 60% para la población criolla o blanca en Chile, el cual se hace referencia en el estudio antes mencionado.

• 8°Por otro lado, García Zarza (1992), daría una mayoría blanca para la población chilena name=> Argentina, Chile y Uruguay, su población está formada casi exclusivamente por una población blanca e blanca mestiza procedente del sur de Europa, más del 90%.

• 9° Another study conducted by Jose Flores Garcia - History, Modern.- In Peru, one of the oldest countries of occupation, while the Amerindian are 54% population and 32% Mestizos, white of Spanish origin barely reach 12% and are fewer blacks and Japanese. Something different is the situation in Colombia - white 20%, Amerindian 2%, mestizo, 58% black, 4%, mulatto, 14% - and in Mexico, white 15%, Amerindian 30% and mestizo 55%. Brazil, for its part, has only a small population with Amerindian (0.4%), 53% white European origin, recent extraction, especially Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians and Germans, 34%, mestizos, and its very important to black people in the past, now limited to 11%, reaching a high percentage of black (22%). Finally, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, its population is composed almost entirely of a white population - over 70% -, Spaniards and Italians for the most part, besides some minorities of Jews, Levante (Syrian Lebanese Armenians) and Central, mostly Germans, arrived mainly after 1800, ranging between Aborigines and a seven percent.

• 10°Finalmente, un estudio mas minucioso de los países de Latinoamérica arrojaría los siguientes resultados: La población de Hispanoamérica se suele dividir étnicamente en ocho zonas. Una indomestiza, con predominio de indios, representada por Guatemala, Ecuador, Perú y Bolivia. Los indios son un 40 ó 60% del total de la población; el resto son mestizos y blancos. Hay otra segunda zona indomestiza, pero con predominio del mestizo. Es el caso de México, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua y Panamá. Los mestizos en estos países representan un 60% de la población, siendo el resto blancos, indios y negros. La tercera zona, la blanca, la representan Costa Rica, Argentina y Uruguay, donde casi la totalidad de la población es de origen europeo. Chile y Paraguay son países hispanomestizos, ya que su población está compuesta de mestizos y blancos. En Chile predomina el grupo blanco y en Paraguay el mestizo. Una quinta zona es la negromulata que abarca Haití, Jamaica, Antillas británicas, Antillas holandesas, Antillas francesas y Honduras británica o Belice; el 40 ó 90% de su población es negra, el resto mulata y blanca. La zona hispanomulata, con predominio mulato, se limita a la República Dominicana, donde la mayoría de la población es mulata, mientras que la zona hispanomulata con predominio blanco es la de Cuba y Puerto Rico, donde casi un 70% de la población es blanca, y el resto mulata y negra. Finalmente, la zona octava es la híbrida del Brasil, Colombia y Venezuela, cuyas poblaciones están compuestas de elementos muy variados.Hispanoamérica.

Con los primeros estudios que cite sobre la genética, queda bastante claro que el mestizaje chileno es castizo, no mestizo si fuera así seria parejo entre carga europea y carga amerindia (50/50 o 55/45), al contrario de lo que dices tú. Cambiaré lo que redactaste sobre la composición étnica de Chile, porque son opiniones tuyas que no se acercan a las fuentes citadas cual cae en muchos errores porcentuales y de reacción lingüística inadecuada a la situación Contemporánea de Chile. Cordiales saludos--Kusamanic (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)--Kusamanic (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew alphabet

Hi there, please try to avoid multiple-minimal edits like your recent ones at Hebrew Alphabet (which make monitoring tedious), rather keep checking and improving the preview until you're satisfied with the result and only then save it. Thanks, Dan ☺ 10:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tsvi Misinai

Hi and thanks for your efforts in improving the article. In case you intend to expand the article, i just want you to know that i have posted all the links i could find about Tsvi and his work in the facebook group "The Engagement Movement". You can find them there. Regards, Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 07:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forget to source the info that you add into the article. Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 10:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i would greatly appreciate it if you could source this para that you inserted?

He states it was a topic which was spoken of openly until relatively recent history, much as the Egyptians or Lebanese are aware of their origin in the ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians respectively, and speak of it even if it arouse the passions of those who wish to stress or de-emphasize it. As with other "Arabs", the origin of Palestinians also became a relegated issue over time, but for them, the additional emergence of Zionism in the early 19th century constituted a competing national interest not directly affecting other "Arabs" (although Arab nationalism would serve as a counter-force vis-à-vis Zionism), and so the topic of origin became admonished, then transforming into outright hostility as a blemish of liability following the establishment of modern Israel by world Jewry, to the Palestinians' detriment.

Regards, Santiago Matamoros 09:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, dude. I have already sourced it. Santiago Matamoros 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Gilo

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Gilo, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Furthermore, please note that it is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary when you change an article, particularly when you make major edits to the content and information within the article. Please review WP:Edit_Summary for more information. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Chile

Perhaps rather than continuing reverting the edits of others on the subject of race relations on this and other articles, you would be more effective if you discussed the problems on each article's talk page and reach consensus. This looks like a classic WP:Edit War. Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Errors and changes without consensus

Your changes no correspond to describe the Demographics of Chile or Chile as a nation, not even for ethnography (Greek ethnos-εθνος, "tribe, people" - and graph-γραφω, "I write" - literally "description of people") is a research method of social and cultural anthropology that facilitates the study and understanding of a particular socio-cultural field, normally a human community with its own identity. It is based on interviews and observation (participant observation is the most important), with the field work a basic tool in the research process. "It has to do with the study of culture or cultures of a population, not its composition "racial" or phenotypes and genotypes. That should be encompassed under bioarchaeology or physical anthropology or "study population", but in no case in an article of population or demography. Therefore, I ask that you refrain from changes and opinions as this 1):The only reliable sources regarding the ancestral origins of Chile's population are genetic studies, and all of these, thus far, indicate various majority figures for Chileans of admixed origin, in varying degrees of European and Amerindian admixture. 2): controversy: 35% Amerindian with traces [around 1%] of other admixture." the top 1%?, You are manipulating sources.3): Large listing on their "disputes" and "inaccuracies", though I assume in good faith, but copiare this same message in the corresponding talk page, so that agreed changes and to avoid an edit war, for now return to the information origin. Ccrazymann (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You seem to be engaged in a slow edit war at Chile, particularly with your insistent replacement of [content without consensus]. While the three reverts rule specifically limits the number of reverts allowable per day, its intention is to prevent edit warring of any kind. Even a slow edit war, if it goes on long enough, is grounds for a block. If you disagree with the contents of the article, please discuss the matter on the talk page, not in edit summaries as you repeatedly revert the change. Ccrazymann (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You also appear to be initiating an edit war in Chilean American. Please reach concensus on the talk page before making and reverting contentious edits. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed references, and provide no support for you contention. A careful read recognises that the 48% is talking about all hispanics in the US, not only Chiliean ones. The paragraph is poorly worded, but your changes made it little clearer. You have also not discussed the issue on the talk page before reverting a forth time. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chilean American. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. . You violated it with this edit. Furthermore, you haven't discussed these changes on the articles talk page--Work permit (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This was posted on my talk, but I think meant for you (not sure if you were watching) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Al- Going by the same pattern edits that you have made to Articles about White Chileans all over the place you are POV pushing with a clear agenda and is using WP:SYNTHESIS to push your agenda like you did here [[1]] and are doing at all articles that have to do with this population this is clear violation of WP:NPOV and the previous policy not to mention you have been edit warring as well--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Chilean American. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

For the complete report of this case, see WP:AN3#User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Clovis Sangrail (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

seems to me that you have never been to chile

by the way, the universidad of chile is a middle low class university in every aspect, very much related with population of any king of indian ancestry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezdez1984 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I read Cruz-Coke's article, and in fact he is generalizing, because the object of the study is not about determining the genetic-racial composition of Chile, if not, to explain the cause of some genetic diseases. That leaves the statment of general racial admixture of 2/3 white and 1/3 mixed to interpretation. For exaple, in the high income group, if we take a sample of 100 people, 91 would be white, and 9 mixed; of that amount of people, probable 80 is fully white, with spanish or other ancestry, and 20 would have a darker skin. What i am trying to say basically is that genetically you cant say that the whole bulk of population is mestizo, with different amounts of racial admixture, because in fact if you walked through the streets of Santiago everyday you will see there are big differences between people, more than to say that 99,99999% of Chileans are mestizo.

Why do you think the other 10 sources Kusamanic named say what they say? Are they "liars"?

I think you should quit making statements that don´t concern you, about a country youve probably never been on.

Diego Echeverría Santiago —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezdez1984 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Zambo has nothing to do with mixed people

Hello,

I notice that you are are one of the editors of the Zambo article. I strongly dispute the content of this article and lay my arguments with sources in the discussion page of the article titled: Zambo has nothing to do with mixed people.

Thanks 86.176.170.210 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps of Interest to you

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [[2]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)