User talk:AbelM7

August 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to List of wars involving the United States has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of wars involving the United States was changed by AbelM7 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950605 on 2013-08-14T01:14:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

AbelM7, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AbelM7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

working with other editors

Hi AbelM7, I see that you've undone the changes of other editors 4 times over the last 24 hours or so. This kind of back-and-forth has no amicable solution unless people discuss and agree on the talk page, and is called an edit war (you can read the rules here: WP:EDITWAR). You're new so I won't threaten to call an administrator, but somebody could choose to block you from editing temporarily. Instead of "edit warring," think of ways in which you might successfully convince others of the points you're making. In this particular case, I am one of a number of editors editing the article who is not convinced that your edits help accurately describe the conflict, which is ongoing since the departure of US troops. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing the article in the talk page. AbelM7 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. An edit that you recently made to Cuban American seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dominican American. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I asked you to leave a message on my talk page, not try to engage in an edit war. Please read WP:MOS in order to familiarise yourself with what goes into the brackets! Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My edits were not unconstructive or disruptive. I simply gave the translation of the word. AbelM7 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AbelM7. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 03:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mexico

The formal name of the nation is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (United Mexican States), which is given earlier in that same paragraph. It is _not_ known as "Estados Unidos de Mexico", at least according to the government sites I visit. That seems to have been a poor translation and then backwards translation to produce the incorrect name. Please find a reference other than that article, which seems to have a factual error. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the official name of Mexico is the United Mexican States but it is also refer to as the United States of Mexico. I'm not changing the translation. I'm adding the fact Mexico is also known as the United States of Mexico that's why the sentence says also known as. Yes, I will find another source. AbelM7 (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that it isn't also known as that, except in rare mistranslations. Where I grew up, "Estados Unidos de Mexico" would have been thought of as referring to the states from Texas to California, the parts of the United States that used to belong to Mexico. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't also known as the United States of Mexico then there will be no instances of people call it that. It's kind of like the word to call people from Argentina. Officially in English it's Argentine but people still call them Argentinian or Argentinean. To describe the past states of Mexico, people would probably use "los antiguos estados de Mexico". Other countries have used the term "united states" to describe their country. AbelM7 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is, it's a mistake. If you were to say "occasionally articles mis-tranlate to united states of mexico", that would be accurate, albeit somewhat unnecessary. To say it's known as "Estados Unidos de Mexico" is simply false - that isn't accurate, that is the result of mistranslation and then back-translation. I don't find sources in Spanish which refer to "Estados Unidos de Mexico". It is improper in an encylopedic reference to state that a nation is "known as". using an erroneous term. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars involving the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sumatran Expeditions and Fiji Expeditions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Argentino Americano

In Spanish, "argentino estadounidense" is the most common expression to refer to Argentine American people. "Argentino americano" is much less usual, perhaps for the reasons that I wrote here. Your edit gives more weight to the less used "argentino americano", which is misinforming.

I reverted your changes once again. Windroff (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That is why there is a "or" between Argentino americano and Argentino estadounidense. I speak Spanish. Argentino is Argentine and Americano is American. Argentino Americano is the translation of Argentine American. Argentino estadounidense misinforms native English speakers into thinking American translates into Estadounidense. Estadounidense translates into United Statesian. AbelM7 (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That "or" does not make clear that one alternative is common and the other is much less used. This is why I reverted you. Windroff (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

An Argentine American born and raised or just raised in USA will most likely use American / Americano in the national definition and not in the continents definition. Argentino americano is the translation of Argentine American and Argentino estadounidense is the translation of Argentine United Statesian. American / Americano has several definitions. In this case, the article is referring to Americans / Americanos as in from the United States of America / Estados Unidos de América who are descendants of Argentines / Argentinos as in from the Argentine Republic / República Argentina. AbelM7 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the term entirely, until you find a WP:RS citation. This is the second time I've seen you show a fixation on a literal translation, assuming that words translate directly with the same meaning in all contexts. The word "american" does translate to "americano" in spanish, but not all the meanings are the same or applicable in all phrases. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Americano is translated into American. Americano is not an offensive word. It is going to be quite difficult to find an article in Spanish for Argentino Americano since the Spanish-language press really stresses out the fact to call people from the USA as "United Statesians" and never "Americans" and since Argentine Americans are not a big population (only 0.08%) so they probably won't get huge coverage in Argentina. But this does not mean that people do not use other terms. People also use North American to refer to people from USA. Latinos raised in USA or another non Spanish speaking country will use American to refer to people from USA. Argentine Americans will use American in the national definition. What about the word "United Statesian" / "Estadounidense"? Wouldn't the people from USA find that offensive? How many Americans / Americanos actually refer to themselves as United Statesians / Estadounidenses? AbelM7 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

English is not Spanish, and you cannot translate between them by taking absolute meanings for individual words and assuming they are identical in the other language. In Spanish, I am "Estadounidense", not American. An American, calling himself an Americano in Mexico (for example), will sometimes cause offense. Let's move this to the article talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course English is not Spanish. I never said it was. The article is about Argentine Americans (American people of Argentine descent). American-born Hispanics use American / Americano to refer to people from USA. The word American / Americano have several definitions. You can call yourself Americano. You're an Americano in both sense (from USA and from the Americas). AbelM7 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion here. Windroff (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You were the one who brought it here. AbelM7 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rhodean

Hi, I saw you added this demonym to both the List of demonyms for U.S. states and Rhode Island. I reverted the latter simply because Rhode Islander is the official demonym, but hope that you might have a source to add to the list page? Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm Dan653. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Argentine American, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dan653 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Argentino = Argentine. Americano = American. That's the translation. AbelM7 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Argentino Americano

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windroff (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Argentine American#Argentino_americano". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:30, Saturday, September 28, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your recent editing history at Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Over hyphenated Americans

I am pretty sure that the construct something-americano is dominant, and that the ones using something -estad(o)unidense sound terrible and extremely artificial (even because in Portuguese/Spanish the construct something-americano sounds casual, not an awful lot but it does). I'd even say it's also horrible because "*term for American* de origen/extração *something*" sounds formal and educated, and it would be the one I'd expect in the contexts where americano is not "forgivable" anymore because it's not colloquial. But then I'm Brazilian, and we need an enormous idea of separation of colloquial and educated language to be go upward socially, this way it might not be as obvious for other people, but I'm pretty sure it's the case with both languages. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm Mexican American and you'll usually hear other Mexican Americans (or other Hispanic/Latino Americans) say "I'm Mexican American" in English and "Soy mexicano americano" in Spanish (or if they're from another Hispanic descent like Salvadoran, they'll say "I'm Salvadoran American" in English and "Soy salvadoreño americano" in Spanish). Yes, estadounidense does sound terrible and extremely artificial. The first time I heard estadounidense, I thought the people had an accent of some sort and were saying Estados Unidos really fast. The word United Statesian / Estadounidense / Estadunidense just sounds awkward in English, Spanish, Portuguese and any language. Most Wikipedia articles about hyphenated nationalities usually start off as (for example) "A German American is an American of German descent" or something along that. Usually the word, in this case "German American", gets translated into the other country's language and not the "American of German descent" part. By the way, thanks for actually knowing the other terms Spanish-speakers use to refer to people from the USA such as Americano, Norteamericano and Estadounidense! There was this debate in the Argentine American article about how to translate the word Argentine American and I explained to one of the users that Latin Americans use to refer to people but he didn't believe me. AbelM7 (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The last time we went through this debate you simply insisted that "American" == "Americano", thus you could freely exchange words to form phrases at will. Which you cannot. I can tell you (as a Mexican-American myself), that using the term "Americano" in Mexico can provoke hostility and a lecture on the fact that Mexico is in the Americas as well. The term estadounidense is widely used, it appears on any official document describing my nationality. I personally use the derogatory term "gringo" to describe myself these days to avoid that potential hostility. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That depends on the use. Colloquially in Brazil you can use americano, and the construct something-americano is NEVER adapted to these various weird sorts of politically correct terms for U.S. Americans, because it sounds just terrible.

And gringo is not always derogatory. In my country it describes everyone foreigner, black or white, good or bad. :P Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment that *NONE* of the four references you posted are argentinian; Semanario Argentino is from Miami, Hoy Los Angeles is obviously from California, Sun Sentinel is another Florida publication. The book I'm not sure, the author appears to be Latvian and it's flagged in Amazon as "spanish edition" which usually means a translation. I don't think any of the four qualify as WP:RS on whether the term is used in Argentina. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not me who put it there. Regardless, whether they use it in Argentina or not is irrelevant. It says Spanish, not some nonexistent "Argentine language". But I'm pretty sure that the construct something-americano is prevalent in the Southern Cone because I'm very close to it myself, had you forgot. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tarl.Neustaedter Since you're Mexican American, you more than likely knew about the other terms Latin Americans use to refer to people from the USA! You knew I was correct but you still kept on reverting. Unless you're one of the Mexican Americans who speak little or no Spanish, you probably didn't know, which I don't think you are. American does translate into Americano like how united translates into unido, republic into república, city into ciudad, etc. I personally just say "Soy de los Estados Unidos de América" or "USA". I will occasionally say America/América and American/americano referring to the USA since I'm used to it and then I explain to them that people call the USA America and that people from the USA don't call themselves "United Statesians"/"estadounidenses" and to think about how ridiculous the word estadounidense sounds. I also ask them if their country had "United States" in its official name, for example "United States of Colombia" (which it actually used to), would they call themselves "estadounidenses" or "colombianos". I was taught that the word gringo meant a white person and later on I learned that people from Latin America use gringo to refer to people from USA. Either way, I wouldn't recommend you to use it since most of the time I hear it, it's used as a derogatory word. As for the sources, you look for any reason as to why they shouldn't be used. First that it came from an English-language newspaper and that it was probably a "bad translation" and now that the sources aren't Argentinian. It's still Spanish. And like what Srtª PiriLimPomPom said, it doesn't say some nonexistent "Argentine language". @Srtª PiriLimPomPom You're right, those various weird sorts of politically correct terms do sound terrible. By the way, using "U.S. Americans" is like using "U.K. British". It doesn't sound right but I get what you mean. Gringo may be used in Brazil to refer to foreigners in general but here in the USA, it's used as derogatory word for non-Hispanic white people. AbelM7 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's used solely for non-Hispanic whites, it's weird that a Mexican American would label himself as such once in Mexico, isn't it? Pardon, not saying that I don't believe you over your native language's slang, but I think the construct gringo = anglo white is a bit dumb since it was started by Spanish people who happen to be European. It comes from griego, as in, "you speak gibberish to my ears". BTW in the most common use, we tend to not label foreigners as gringos in Brazil once their Portuguese is passable, rather we say "ela é da gringa", meaning "she's from overseas". So if you see someone using gringo this racist way that is a defamation against our languages, I suggest you correct it rather than acting passively about such. lol :P Regards Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I do find it weird that a Mexican American will label himself a gringo. I'm guessing the construct gringo = anglo white is used since most Americans are non-Hispanic whites and Hispanic Americans don't feel they a part of the same group as white Anglo Americans. I didn't knew that's how it was used in Brazil. And yeah, if I see someone using gringo in the racist way, I will correct them. AbelM7 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Americas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)