User talk:Obsidian Soul/Archive 9
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
July 2023
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Filipino immigration to Mexico. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. In the edit summary — Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa It's hard to stay cool when another editor has been doing Wikipedia-wide insidious changes to wording in articles just to label my entire people slaves and exclude any mention of us in relation with our former colonizers. I've long grown to despise Wikipedia's tolerance of people like them, which drives out people like us who actually write the articles. I get a template, he gets a pat on the back. OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring/Deletion of Sources
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CMD007 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
Hello, I'm Achmad Rachmani. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Manila galleon have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Manila galleon. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Bread in Spain, you may be blocked from editing. Technopat (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Block duration reduced
Based on the discussion at WP:ANI, I have reduced the duration of your block to one week. I hope that you will return to productive editing, and use Dispute resolution procedures in the future. Thank you for your many years of contributions to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't say I didn't try
ARCHIVED ANI HERE @Black Kite: @M.Bitton: @DarmaniLink: @Aoidh: @StarTrekker: @ActivelyDisinterested: @Ingenuity: @YesI'mOnFire: @Courcelles: @EvergreenFir: @Jayron32: @Cullen328: @Jayen466:
How do I even begin to explain the helpless RAGE that I feel towards every single one of CMD007's edits that remains in place? To a western-majority Wikipedia bureaucracy? LOL Most of you either don't know anything about this. Or don't give a fuck. And you've never been in a situation even remotely similar to the insidious kind of racism he's doing. What do I have to do to get you to listen? I've already encountered that WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS once, and this time, even when it's blindingly obvious, you still act like his behavior is normal.
This hilariously feels like being those kids in the movies who get bullied, who report it to the teacher, only for the teacher to punish them both for being too noisy or some completely unrelated shit. LOL
I checked the noticeboard several times during my block. Each time hoping even just one of you would discuss the issues I raised in my first post. At least some indication of trust that as a highly experienced editor with no history of blocks, I would actually know how to spot a problematic editor.
None. Not a single word of it.
I explained his behavior in edit summaries, in talk pages, then twice with diffs in ANI and it was still not enough to get someone in internal housekeeping to even bother to understand what the issue was. I even explicitly said this was not about our issue in mezcal. It was his OVERALL edits. Still no response.
CMD007 is, as I've said, a "racist piece of shit". And I will not apologize for that estimation, per WP:SPADE.
But no. Because ANI apparently is simply a game of waiting to see who violates a blockable offense first. 3RR, NPA, obvious vandalism. Everything else are treated as content disputes. Even if it's someone calling an entire ethnic group as just slaves. We, or rather, you, are not equipped to handle subtle vandalism. You got it all wrong, @ActivelyDisinterested:. I'm experienced enough to know there is no solution. Your username even embodies that. Whatever the actual problem is, is irrelevant. Even the new admins like @Ingenuity: don't bother anymore with trying to understand the situation, and just go straight for an indef. LOL. That was a spectactularly savage display of bad adminship. Easiest way to 'solve' everything. Probably explains a good deal of the missing editors over the years.
I went WP:POINTy precisely to illustrate the point of what he was doing, and out of sheer frustration at how no one seems to care. And it worked, kinda. @Jayron32: seems to think THIS was my unforgivable diff. Which hilariously Illustrates the above points perfectly. Because he remains ignorant that that was exactly what CMD007 was doing in the first place. I merely summarized it to one sentence. And the funniest part is that you reverted to CMD007's version, which means the article still says the same thing as my faux "vandalism."
@M.Bitton:, since you want me to "think of the readers". Here's a list of everything CMD007 has done in his 2 years of being here. In addition to the ones I already mentioned, like Polvoron or History of Spanish slavery in the Philippines. Only the ones I can find. His other edits are probably just as problematic too. But I didn't check. I spent almost a whole day just compiling this list. And it's not even all of his edits.
Note that I have never edited most of these articles. He also never adds sources (unless challenged, then he adds random ones). He just changes the wording to say what he wants it to say, or just outright removes words or entire sections. And in almost all of them, his edits have remained. These are their current states. Buried under and falsely legitimized by intervening edits already. THESE ARE WHAT READERS SEE.
I trust it's easy to see the pattern and purpose of his edits.
- Mestizo
fixed
- Removed the Philippines, Mariana Islands, and Aruba, from the article's infobox. Including the languages they speak
- Removed it even further. Refusing to acknowledge that the term "Mestizo" is used in the Philippines, Guam, etc. the same way and had the same legal importance as it did in Latin America
- Even more removals of sourced mentions of non-American historical usage of the term in the Spanish Empire
- Finally completely removed the Spanish East Indies altogether, completing the excision of all non-Latin American usage of "Mestizo"
- Real Audiencia fixed
- Overseas Filipinos fixed
- Changed the wording on sourced text, from "Filipino" -> "Philippines-born", because white people (one of them is a mestizo) can't be Filipinos apparently
- Changed "traditions and customs" to mere "trade and commerce". Change "Spanish colony" to mere "trading post" and "Spanish territory". Deliberately obfuscated "ethnic and cultural mingling between Mexicans and Filipinos" to "ethnic and cultural mingling between multiple groups". Not a single source was provided for these changes. Again just one or two word changes that completely change the meaning of sourced content
- New Spain fixed
- Enríquez fixed
- Removed the Philippines. Someone move the pages of Mike Enriquez and Jocelyn Enriquez etc. to something else please. Can't have none of that Spanish surnames on us slaves.
- Inserted the assertion that most of the slaves were Filipinos. Which is not in the sourced original text, nor in the actual source itself. Note that he does NOT add any new sources. Just changed the text to something the source does not say.
- Emphasized the "Nao de China" name, which was already mentioned elsewhere in the lead, probably because it says China not Manila. First use of the term "chinos esclavos", which as explained by the source does NOT actually refer to Filipino slaves exclusively, and is actually point of contention by FREE Filipino immigrants to New Spain, the "chinos libres" - who ARE mostly Filipino, because of the confusion of the usage of the same inaccurate colonial term "chinos". Just like how Columbus couldn't find India, so he just called everyone Indians.
- And now THAT edit of his is now there for eternity, because @Technopat: just restored that edit without reading the actual original sentence, or its source. Apparently unable to see the link between my WP:POINTy demonstration to the same fucking words. See @Jayron32:? We ARE just "chinos esclavos" according to Wikipedia. LMFAO
- And now Technopat in his blessed idiocy of AGF-ing, is now busy integrating CMD007's steaming pile of shit into the article
- Removed the "Philippines" subsection and replaced it with "Former Spanish East Indies", despite all the other subsections being divided by modern country names
- Adds modifier "very small population" and "sometimes other" to the Philippines subsection with no added sources. Removed a sourced paragraph.
- Bistek fixed
- Changed wording to imply this was a modern secondarily acquired dish from Spain/Latin America. Instead of a contemporaneous colonial dish back when all of it was the Spanish Empire. Same subtle distancing wording, like changing "from" to "loan word from", even though a fully Spanish name of the dish exists: bistec tagalog
- Attempted to hijack the article into a purely Spanish definition with zero mention of the Philippines, like he did in Flan cake
- Removal of an entire very well-sourced paragraph on African and Asian admixture in mestizos. Removed "Afro-Mexicans" and "Asian Mexicans" in related groups, again with the edit summary claiming that "mestizo never historically included Africans or Asians". Which is bullshit of course, but we must not dirty his limpieza de sangre. Eh, @CMD007:?
- Removed the Philippines and replaced it with the very vague "Iberian influenced cultures around the world". Despite the fact that the Philippines is literally the only country left that is not mentioned where empanada is a big fucking deal in local cuisines. I was actually planning to expand it because it's one of my favorite dishes. I guess I'll never get to do that now. This is it's current state.
- Completely removed the Philippines in the lead sentence. No reason. Just to hide it I guess. I'm thankful he didn't seem to read past the first paragraph.
- Completely gutted MULTIPLE SOURCED paragraphs discussing how the pre-colonial nobility of the Philippines were legally integrated as the Principalia aristocracy of the colonial era by the Spanish crown. His only explanation? "These are not for entire articles, only summaries" . But he didn't move the text he removed. It's just gone. Someone tried to revert him, then gave up. THIS IS ITS CURRENT STATE.
- Subtle change in wording, massive change in meaning. No new sources introduced.
- Removed Filipinos as a related group. Just us. Everyone else is fine.
- Reworded the lead to specifically claim that Filipinos came to Mexico as "slaves and prisoners". Added "and other Asian ethnicities" and "Chinese" just to muddle it even further, even if they were not in the sources. Then further minimized it by adding the modifiers" handful of inhabitants". He also inserted "but the view that Filipinos may be Hispanic is not universally accepted", even though the article was talking about the US GOVERNMENT CENSUS CLASSIFICATIONS of Filipino immigrants. Again no new sources added. The sources in place contradict his changes. THIS IS ITS CURRENT STATE.
- Same shit as above. Slaves, prisoners.... you get the idea. And yep current state.
- Slaves, prisoners... current state...
- Deliberate conflation of Filipinos (chinos libres) and Chinos (chinos "esclavos", LEGAL Asian slaves, including some Filipino war captives from the Moro Wars, but most of it are purchased Portuguese slaves from Goa and elsewhere). Again, the preexisting sources contradict him. He doesn't add a new one to support his changes. The original text he replaced was correct.
- Castro (surname) fixed
- Removed the Philippines. Apparently 6.8% of Filipinos need to change their surnames to something CMD007 approves of.
- Apparently we were "never a Spanish-speaking country". As usual. No sources added to support his changes. He even hid the images so it's more believable. LMAO
- Completely remove the Philippines again. Just completely remove every single mention of it, regardless of the sources. I've given up identifying current states too, haven't I? Take a wild guess on whether these edits still stand.
- Don (honorific) fixed
- Polvoron fixed
- Churros fixed
- Bread in Spain fixed
- Flan cake fixed
- Hijacked the article entirely, confusing the flan cake for flan (creme caramel), and of course, giving Mexico and Spain all the credit
- I tried to fix it but...
- Block evader already at work. LOL
- Removed the Philippines as the source of distillation. Completely changed the article by replacing key words, and then supposedly sourced all these changes from books WHICH DO NOT SUPPORT THE TEXT
- After the first revert, did it again, even more comprehensively this time, introducing even more factual errors by his word-replacement style of editing supported by vague sources that do not actually support the text.
- In it's current state, it repeats the idiotic one-liner inserted by @M.Bitton:, even though the history section sourced from the two most detailed academic sources on the topic clearly discusses the origin of distillation as only from Philippines. The new one-sentence tertiary source is now added in WP:SYNTHESIS giving the impression that its origin from Spain had any historical or scientific bases whatsoever (it does not)
- Menudo (soup) fixed
I don't expect any of you to know our history. So to summarize the most relevant context: While some of us were enslaved, same as with Native Americans, and we were always second-class citizens in the Spanish Empire, we still had rights as subjects of the crown under the Laws of the Indies and the New Laws (unlike in other European colonial empires). And one of those rights is protection from slavery. Filipino immigrants and ALL Asian slaves in Mexico (New Spain) were BOTH called "chinos" (because "indio", the term used in the Philippines/Spanish East Indies, was already being applied to Native Americans). Hence the eventual necessary demarcation between "chinos libres" (almost all Filipinos) vs. "chinos esclavos" (mostly Indians from Goa like the "China Poblana", as well as other Asian slaves from the Portuguese slave trade sold through Manila, including a minority of Muslim Filipino war captives and indigenous slaves from the alipin system). If you still don't trust me on that, read the sources in the pre-CMD007 versions (which in most cases, he didn't change, since he doesn't add sources). Seijas in particular has a very good book on it - Asian Slaves in Colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians (if you don't have access to her book, read this review, which mentions the above).
The fact that I feel like I even have to explain that given how obviously bad-faith his edits have been, with predominantly zero sources for his changes, is grating to me. Have I ever given even a single indication that I would fucking lie in the thousand+ articles that I have written and expanded here?
I have this feeling it's wasted effort all the same. You'll just ignore me for swearing. Either that or CMD007 reinstates them all next week, next month, next year. CMD007 is already evading blocks like a pro. And no one will notice, especially now that I'm gone. But hey, at least it's a good LAST effort, right? A farewell gift to Wikipedia. Have fun with CMD007. When has blocks and our saintly devotion to WP:AGF ever stopped the single-minded drive of people like him? It has only ever stopped people like me. He's the editor Wikipedia deserves.
This isn't an unblock request. I know some of you will probably go on the defensive and do the opposite out of spite. I am already leaving Wikipedia. Objectively, CMD007's edits are VANDALISM. The racist kind. JUST FIX WHAT HE DID. Make me not regret my time here. Please.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- CMD007 is indefinitely blocked. You have the knowledge and understanding of the topics and the reliable sources necessary to correct these problems. Please reconsider your decision to leave Wikipedia. I will back you up although I lack the topic expertise. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Obsidian Soul I understand your frustration but I think you should keep in mind that the ANI was about how the edits were carried out (swearing at other editors will never fly, even if one deserves to be judged as a racist) not about a content dispute. As I expressed before I hope you will come back to editing. You are clearly an exprienced and good editor with a better knowlege of the topic at hand than most of us and it would be a loss for you to leave.★Trekker (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I only saw this because you tripped the edit filter and blanked a GA calling a group slaves. You only started off indeffed *because* of the mass vandalism, and by by someone patrolling AIV who had no idea of the whole context, as you were reported there. That never would have stood, and if you appealed you probably would have gotten off without a sanction at all. You went into this looking for a sanction, to see what would happen. And it wound up being a week in the end.
- I didn't know anything about the topic, and only saw mass blanking of articles. What do you expect someone on the outside to think when they see someone blanking over a dispute, who knows nothing about the topic? Knowing what I know now, you were in the right, and now you have the power to fix it, as CMD is banned. This topic has gotten enough publicity in the community that now if he tries to bully you again or POV edit you can guarantee multiple people will be there to revert him so you don't get 3RR'd. If he decides to use multiple accounts to get around that, you have a clearcut SPI case.
- There's a reason he got indeffed, and you only got a week. Look at what you did and what you put into the articles, especially given you already got a few warnings without a block, for things other editors would have been blocked for as seen in the ANI thread. Do you really think that didn't deserve something?
- Every single person - knowing the full context, agrees that minus the brief blanking, you were completely in the right, and have every right to be upset with him. You don't see anyone sticking up for CMD after he got changed to an indef.
- You're able to change and improve the articles now, he can't disrupt that anymore, and now I'm wiling to bet that a few editors added those articles to their watchlist to make sure he can't disrupt you anymore DarmaniLink (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did indeed ask you to reconsider when you were mass blanking the articles, but I also do understand that you probably did it out of frustration. Having dealt with subtle pov pushing in the past, I know how difficult it can get when you are asked to assume good faith with an obvious (to you) vandal/pov pusher. Fortunately, there is also some good news: CMD007 was indeffed and the targetted articles are now on our watchlists, giving you the opportunity to address all the issues that you (as someone who is familiar with the topic) can see. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know why I was tagged, I have no intention of stopping you from fixing these articles and making them correct. Have at it. --Jayron32 10:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Same. Doubly so given I blocked CMD. Courcelles (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, those diffs are damning and provide clear and convincing evidence that CMD was pushing a racist POV. Thank you for doing that work. It is hard for others like me who know little-to-nothing about the topic at hand to understand the rather subtle racist vandalism without seeing the pattern laid out like this. Each edit, individually, appears benign to me as an admin unfamiliar with the topic. But shown together, the pattern is clear. In the initial ANI, you did try to show the pattern but honestly it wasn't blatant enough for me to see the pattern. I'd say you did the wrong thing (article blanking) for the right reasons. CMD is indefinitely blocked, to the ends were met even if the means were disruptive. I sincerely hope that when the block expires you continue contributing. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
CMD007 is already evading blocks like a pro. And no one will notice, especially now that I'm gone.
You really are not very good at spotting sockpuppets you know. I cleaned up your vandalism spree and making a report to AIV in the hope you would get a "stop being disruptive because CMD007 wasn't blocked the instant you reported them to ANI" block after you spent over an hour vandalising pages and started reverting the people cleaning up after you. Do you seriously think that only socks of CMD007 would revert edits like these [1] [2] [3] [4]? That's before you get into obvious differences like the fact I am on the opposite side of the planet from Mexico, I edit completely different parts of the project (when have you ever seem CMD007 use XFD, show any interest in templates or propose modifications to the interwiki prefix map), and I have a much better understanding of policy (I hope outside observers would agree). A few admins may even recognise who I am from this IP address since I've been here a long time. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant
|
|---|
|
===Right of reply===
For all my "blessed idiocy of AGF-ing" (way to go, kiddo!) here at Wikipedia I often find that rants like yours are mere projections that dissimulate the writer's actual behaviour, often blaming others for their own behaviour. I don't know if that’s the case here, because I can't be bothered to check all your other accusations, but now, once you have managed to get that defamatory and scatological diatribe off your chest, maybe you could explain to me exactly why, when and where I have incurred your wrath. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I am aware, we have only coincided at two articles and I have now had to waste my time and return to them to see if I can get some idea of what's going on: In this first case, for which I left you a warning above, I restored some sources that you had deleted without leaving the prescribed edit summary. I had checked one of those sources at random before restoring them and found it to be a perfectly reliable source. However, what's most striking here is that I now find that some, or all of those sources are precisely the sources you yourself added last November, so I really don't understand exactly what you are playing at in that case. What's more, in this previous edit, CMD007 restored a seemingly stable version to which you had added several totally irrelevant wikilinks, as in, they have nothing to do with the article title, Bread in Spain (my italics). Not only that, but you also insinuated in your edit summary —"... CMD007 is allergic to any mention of the Philippines, it seems."— that s/he had deleted any mention of the Philippines, which is clearly not the case. Not only did CMD00 not delete the mention of the Philippines —merely changing the section heading— but the nuance s/he added in the edit summary regarding the fact that the Philippines were not the sole area in Asia under Iberian rule is perfectly correct. Having now checked several other edits at that article, I am forced to conclude that CMD007's edits there were correct and yours were not always so, especially the current version in which I restored "your" sources and sometimes irrelevant content that you had added. However, I shall leave that to other editors to sort out as I have no intention of editing there lest I further incur your wrath. Life is too short to find oneself involved in flame wars. In the second case, which is the one that seems to inflame you most, your accusation that I am "busy integrating CMD007's steaming pile of shit into the article" seems, to say the least, even weirder, because I did not modify "your" previous version, except to do some necessary copy-editing and to add some "new" content with its corresponding reliable source. So if anything was "integrated", it was right there in "your" last version of the article. --Technopat (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Two long replies and you still haven't bothered to read the original post regarding what the issue actually is with CMD007's editing history. You probably don't even know that I've never edited most of these articles before CMD007 showed up. You refuse to understand the issue, yet you complain that I'm being scornful. I'll answer you anyway: 1. I restored the original text that I had written from the sources I had read and provided. Just because CMD007 kept the original sources in place while he radically changes the wording doesn't make his edits "sourced." 2. "Other breads have Spanish names but have local origins with no counterparts in Spain, like the pan de coco,..." I just told you I originally expanded that section because it originally confused the two different pan de cocos and incorrectly claimed that the Filipino pan de coco originated from Latin America. A lot of people tend to think these breads are Spanish because they have Spanish names. It's one throwaway sentence for clarification. You can remove it if you really want to, if you're that spiteful and incapable of admitting you were wrong when you assumed those sources were CMD007's. 3. Are breads from Guam and the Marianas mentioned anywhere there? Do you see New Spain, Viceroyalty of New Granada, Viceroyalty of Peru, Viceroyalty of Rio de Plata, etc. anywhere in the previous sections? No? Then why would you insist in classifying Filipino breads under the Spanish East Indies? 4. Again, with that arrogant ignorance. I already explained why the claim that Filipinos were all slaves is not even remotely true above. With a recommendation on sources with far more detailed historical breakdowns on WHO actually arrived on the galleons as WHAT. The Manila galleons did bring in slaves from Asia through Manila. Along with actual free Filipino migrants. The term chino applied to all Asians. Both slaves and free immigrants. Virtually all of the chinos libres in the Manila galleons are Filipino. Most of the chino slaves sold in Manila, on the other hand, were bought from Portuguese slavers from India and Sri Lanka, other areas of Indonesia and Malaysia under Portuguese control (Malacca, Moluccas, Timor, Ambon, etc.). Along with African slaves from their colonies in East Africa (called cafres, from Arabic kafir, a term acquired by the Portuguese from dealing with the Zanzibar Arab slavers). They passed through Manila, but they didn't come from Manila. Because it was illegal. Christianized Filipinos under Spain were protected from slavery under the Laws of the Indies (just as Native Americans were) as subjects of the Spanish Crown. Some of those slaves were Filipino, especially in the early colonial period (late 1500s), when Spaniards (illegally) bought native slaves from the indigenous alipin system. But this was suppressed quickly with harsh punishments from the 1600s onwards. A similar thing was happening in Latin America at around the same time period, since the New Laws and subsequent revisions were just being passed. The rest of the "Filipino" chinos esclavos were Muslim war captives from the Spanish-Moro Wars in the southern Philippines (as well as other captives from Spanish campaigns on unconquered Cordilleran and Negrito highlander tribes). They were not subjects of Spain or technically Filipinos until much much later in the 1890s. Neither the original sources, nor your source verify the vastly oversimplified and simply incorrect claim that all slaves brought to Mexico were Filipino, or that "chinos esclavos" were all Filipinos. Do I need to explain it a third time? I know our history. You, on the other hand, are trying to act like you know more about it after the three minutes of skimming you've done before you replied. I wonder if the above explanation even made sense to you, given you have basically zero background knowledge on this topic. Or why I even bother. This is the original sourced text in the body of the Manila galleon article before CMD007 changed the wording to claim the slaves were Filipinos. It is sourced to Seijas' Asian Slaves in Colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians (2014). It is correct:
Yet this is how you and CMD007 summarized it in the lead paragraph:
They do not say the same thing. Yet you inserted it back in. Your new source even discusses this explicitly. Though being only a genetic study and specifically only for Southeast Asians, it does not have as much historical detail as sources like Seijas (2014), which this paper uses as one of its references. The following is an excerpt from the paper you linked but didn't actually read. And yes. Please go away. I'm fixing what I can before I leave. I've had enough of people insisting we were slaves out of pure western arrogance.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) |
"Chulapo" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Chulapo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 5 § Chulapo until a consensus is reached. Voltaigne (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)