User talk:Frijolesconqueso

Welcome![edit]

Hi Frijolesconqueso! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 01:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you moonythedwarf. That is very kind of you!Frijolesconqueso (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits to Genocide of Indigenous Peoples Page[edit]

Hi, I'm Hobomok, and I've noticed your recent edits on the Genocide of indigenous peoples page. I'm writing because I reverted your addition of a source many editors have previously removed. I also see that you've added a neutrality tag to the top of the page and called another source by Clifford Trafzer into question. I'm fairly sure the source in question is represented correctly, so I wonder why you may have done this? I also ask that if you are going to put the POV tag at the top of the page, you explain why you feel the article is POV on the article talk page--this can help to start such a discussion so that the tag can eventually be dealt with and removed. --Hobomok (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobomok the statement has failed verification. It is not supported by the cited source i.e. the introductory section of "Exterminate Them!" by Clifford Trafzer. Regards.--Frijolesconqueso (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frijolesconqueso, I do not mean to be combative here, but that is exactly what the supported cited source says. A brief overview on page five: "In order to fortify that region from Russian control, Galvez dispatched a major expedition in 1769 led by Gaspar de Portola and Father Junipero Serra. The priest set out to establish Catholic missions throughout upper California and convert the Indians to Christianity. He brought religious materials to achieve those ends as well as seeds and vegetables to instruct the Native Americans regarding European agricultural methods. Although Serra and other priests may have possessed what they considered to be honorable intentions in converting the Indians to Christianity, their presence introduced devastating diseases, widespread despair, and genocide among California's native peoples."

Further on page six: "Spaniards never intended for California's Indian people to be equals to Spaniards born in Spain or Mexico. They were not even to be equals with mestizos. California's Indians were seen as a labor force within and outside of the mission system. They were to be the laborers who would allow Spain to reshape California into a bulwark against intrusion by other European powers. Spain sought to accomplish this by founding missions, presidios, and pueblos. These three institutions set in motion Indian cultural decline and resulted in the physical demise of at least one hundred thousand California Native Americans-perhaps more." The introduction goes into further detail, but I won't expand. That said, I'm going to remove the verification tag. --Hobomok (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobomok You are welcome to cite the text. None of what you cite supports the current statement.Frijolesconqueso (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frijolesconqueso The above quotations, upon which the author goes into more detail about at length, do indeed support the paraphrase "an expedition dispatched to fortify California, led by Gaspar de Portolà and Junípero Serra, was marked by slavery, forced conversions, and genocide through the introduction of disease" that is currently on the page. That said, I've introduced a discussion regarding this at the talk page if you would like to discuss further there. It might help if, when calling the POV of pages into question with a banner, you begin a discussion of your issue with POV there on the talk page as well, per WP: POV: When to use. --Hobomok (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misread. I have self-reverted. Apologies.Frijolesconqueso (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize! We all make mistakes! Hobomok (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits to Spanish Colonization of the Americas[edit]

Hi, I'm Hobomok, and I noticed your recent edits on the Spanish colonization of the Americas page. I reverted some of them, as those edits have been discussed previously on the talk page. Further, I'm wondering why you removed the Trafzer link there, which does indeed relate to that discussion. You and I have previously had a related discussion on the Genocide of indigenous peoples page, and as before, I come here so as not to engage in an edit war.
--Hobomok (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you should take this to the talk page, Hobomok. Your sources do not support the idea you are introducing. The demographic collapse in America was overwhelmingly due to Afro-Eurasian disease. If you want to argue otherwise, please discuss it in talk page. This statement version has been stable for a long time. Frijolesconqueso (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Spanish colonization of the Americas[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

And continuation of the editing pattern of User:Filologo2, now indef blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really should not be an admin EdJohnston. Insane level of pettiness and abuse of authority. Frijolesconqueso (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Frijolesconqueso (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock of filologo2. I don't even know who that is. EdJohnston seems to have a long standing obsession with an article I made the mistake of running into. Overall I have been working quite productively on articles related to my home country Mexico with practically no issues or conflicts.. I somehow ran afoul of these two individuals involved with an article about the Spanish empire who seem to be guarding it extremely aggressively. EdJohnston openly takes sides in edit conflicts with the most conflictive editor. Both have been scheming to find ways to have me blocked for a few days now simply for starting a discussion on sources in the talk page. All of this is very very odd and a clear abuse of power. Particularly without a checkuser. I hope this person's admin rights are reviewed because its a shame to the entire project. Politicized admins behaving like gang ring-leaders is the most awful and heartbreaking thing us budding wikipedians can run into. Anyhow, don't have much hope but there you go. Took me 2 minutes to write this. Good luck to other wikipedians dealing with these two... Frijolesconqueso (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Review WP:NOTTHEM and WP:GAB and try again. Note that if your next attempt at an appeal continues to cast aspersions against other editors, you will likely lose access to this page. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admins might take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/95.122.136.229. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,EdJohnston your fabricated BS case in which you spend hours looking around wikipedia for accounts which might be connected to me to throw them into a wide net accusation of sock puppetry. Really sad. How long did you spend trying to get me kicked out of Wikipedia? Is all of this really that important to you? Don't you have better things to do with your day? Shameful and petty. I guess my only consolation is that you spend way more time on this idiocy than I do. Frijolesconqueso (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frijolesconqueso, no more personal attacks. See WP:NPA. If I see any more here, you'll lose access to this talk page. This is your only warning. --Yamla (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla,Jezebel's Ponyo: In Spanish we have a saying "entre bueyes no hay cornadas" (bulls don't gore each other) and I understood this would be the result. But overall I do feel there has been prevarication by an admin and I think I'm perfectly capable of demonstrating it. The problem is that if doing so is construed as "casting aspersions" or a "personal attack" then I will, of course, stay silent. In general lines, there should, be some recourse for people who are facing such situations. Bad apples do exist and there should be a way of detecting them - some internal review system. Not having the right even to express myself sounds a little bit like the judicial system of North Korea. Oh well.. It's not my problem anymore... Was fun while it lasted. Thanks for dropping by. :-) --Frijolesconqueso (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you consult WP:GAB. In general, the best approach is to address your own behaviour, not those of other people. But yes, what if the problem really really is someone else? First, I suggest you step back and consider if maybe it is your own behaviour after all. That's normally the case. But not always. In that case, point to specific diffs which illustrate your concerns and avoid making personal attacks. See WP:NPA for more details. --Yamla (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla Of course I am upset because I have not done anything meriting a week block. I cannot address my own behavior since the decision to get me off wikipedia was taken long before I did anything. No violation of 3RR nothing. Just subject to slander. This entire charade was done so that User:Hobormok could impose his fringe POV theory on a version which has stayed stable for 3 years. He has just smugly done so right now [1] - no one has blocked him even though he is the one who has launched an extremely aggressive edit war while using all means he could think of to "eliminate" opposition.

All of this started when he first tried to impose his rather nonsensical view that the demographic collapse in America was due to Missions rather than disease. As soon as I discussed cordially the problem with what he was trying to do and how it was contradicted by the entire body of academia, he contacted every admin he could to launch a diffamation campaign against me, linking me to azzarty or god knows who else. He found support with this specific admin. Once the case was open Hobormok deleted his most unreasonable edits and then pretended to "engage" with me. It was all extremely well played. He has played out a long term plan and has won. Wikipedia is less reliable as a result.

Incidentally I suggest you look through my edits. Look through all of them, if you have time. They have all been very productive and I have done a lot of good to improve articles about Mexico, rarely coming into conflict with anyone. My main concern was making sure articles about Latin America had adequate sourcing and my specific area of interest is Mexican folklore. I just ran into the wrong guy and wrong article through someone else and paid for it dearly. Frijolesconqueso (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.