User talk:Cityside Seraph

Welcome!

Hello, Cityside Seraph, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ^Blank ^Verse 12:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caló[edit]

Rockero - please read long note already posted to you at Caló (Chicano) Cityside Seraph 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I notice you've been doing a lot of work of the Caló article. But you have made a couple of new pages that are unnecessary. For example, I now count 4 articles: two new ones, Calo (Chicano slang), Caló (Chicano language) in addition to the original Caló (Chicano) and the Caló (disambiguation) pages. We don't need that many. We can make any number of redirects to the main article page.

As for the list, I'm assuming you were following the first suggestion I made on the talkpage? If so, the list page needs to be titled as such (eg. List of Caló words or whatever we decide to title it). There is a standard format for wikipedia lists, and we need to follow it if that's what we decide to do.

While I appreciate your initiative, generally changes as big as the ones you have made are discussed on an article's talk page first, where a consensus can be reached about them. You should also sign your name on talk pages (just type ~~~~ after your comment). It helps keep everything clear and its strongly encouraged by the community.

Finally, the reason I changed my mind about my initial proposal, which Murcielago has also alluded to, has something to do with a comment you made on the Calo (Chicano slang) talk page:

"Calo is most commonly spelled and pronounced with a soft "o" amongst its primary users, i.e. Chicanos living in the barrios of the Southwestern United States, most of whom are neither scholars nor associated with higher academia; and 2)Calo is much easier to type facilitating the addition of new postings by future users".

The accentuation problem is solved with redirects, as I mentioned above. Secondly, I have only ever heard it called Caló, with a "hard" or accentuated "o", both in academia and on the streets (and I mean some chucos from Barrio Compton en like the 70s and 80s, not no punks). But most importantly, is what I mention on the talkpage of the original article: "the list is constantly being added to by IPs and non-experts who add words of Mexican slang, gang slang, and Spanglish words that may or may not actually fall under the definition of Caló." Murcielago elaborates on the problem: "I tend to agree about the words and expressions getting out of hand. What complicates things is that (a) caló is in no way a formal language and even the Pachucos mixed their caló with Spanish slang; (b) Pachucos could be found from Tejas to Califas, and depending on region, their caló dialects differed as well."

From what I know, every clica had their own Calo. If everyone who ever spoke it starts adding their owm words and expressions, not only will the list go on forever, but it would also flout Wikipedia's no original research and verifiability policies.

This is of course up for debate, which is why I hadn't done anything about it yet. They community had yet to reach a decision. So I'd appreciate it if you would contribute your opinion.

I hope that wasn't too much of a regañazo, because I know you are pretty new around here. Don't feel bad or anything, because I'm glad you're contributing--we need people who are close to the streets. We just can't always include information from the streets, mostly because of the policies mentioned above. But the perspective is important to help avoid bias (especially the systemic kind).

If you'd like to respond or if you have any questions or anything, you can hit me back either here, on my talkpage, or leave comments on the articles' talk pages. I'll see them. I'll wait a while before I recommend merging/renaming the new articles if you want to talk about it first.

Thanks again for your contributions,--Rockero 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¿Que pasa?[edit]

I posted you my last comment here at about the same time you made yours on the article talk page. So I have sort of responded in both places. But since I'm here, let me just make my proposal now: I'd like to make Caló (Chicano language) into a redirect to Caló (Chicano). And I want to rename and reformat Calo (Chicano slang) as a list. That's just to conform to policy, etc., and I'm just waiting for the go-ahead from you.

Then we need to determine whether or not the word "Caló", (or "Calo", as the case may be) is applicable to the argot of today. Murcielago says its not, but some of the references listed are from as late as the late 1990s (although their subjects may not be on modern). You say it is. I can see the progression from the Calo of the 30s to what we speak today, but I don't hear anyone calling what they speak their Caló. This reflects my experience more than my research. Depending on what we decide, we may need to modify the intro a bit.

Thirdly, we should decide if we want to rename the main article, for the reasons you mention about the accentuation and for the one I mention about the word Chicano.

Finally, I'd like to personally invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos.

Looking forward to working with you,--Rockero 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can get a copy of the 1962 Schacter and Singer study[edit]

...and permission from one of the authors for fair use. please contact me at eloheinu at gmail.com for more info.

May 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Illegal immigration to the United States has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that edit could be construed as vandalism. The merits of the source are debatable, but the edit was generally proper and appears to have been made in good faith. I assume this was a mistake. Will Beback talk 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a mistake. My apologies, and thanks to Will Beback for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Will Beback talk 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you ~~move a page maliciously.~~ Without consensus. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]