Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
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)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)
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.
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 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 ? 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) |
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)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.