User talk:Lewisguile

Handy tip: If reusing content from one Wikipedia page on another, you can credit the original authors with the following edit summary: copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution

September 2024

I saw the warring on Afro-Jamaicans, maybe take it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring? FifthFive (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I will. It's a bit...extreme. There is a similar pattern of editing multiple pages that seems to be pushing an agenda. Lewisguile (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This has now been addressed. The user has been blocked for 24 hours. If you want to revert back to last stable version again, there shouldn't be any problems now. I'm trying to avoid WP:3RR, so will refrain from doing this myself for now. Lewisguile (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted Afro-Jamaicans. I may have gone back too far - maybe cherry pick some changes to restore some of the content. If they come back after their block, a case could definitely be made for WP:SPA. There are some other articles they've edited like Coromantee which show they've been doing this sort of thing for months on different IPs. FifthFive (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

[1] FifthFive (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for the heads up. I've rolled Coromantee back to 18 August, which seems to revert the least amount of text while avoiding the WP:TE issue. I'll go through the interim edits to see if there's anything worth salvaging, and I'll do the same with Afro-Jamaicans, too. Lewisguile (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@FifthFive So far, the affected pages I've found so far (there are probably Afro-Jamaicans, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Coromantee, Mixed-race Caymanians, Tacky's Rebellion, Turks and Caicos Creole, and Turks & Caicos. Since this user only has a 24-hour block and may be using alternate IPs anyway, this may be an issue that needs to be looked at again once they return.

I've updated the ANI and the admin who responded, but watch out for a slew of reversions when they come back tomorrow AM. Lewisguile (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

a book

I recommend you get the book Contested Frontiers by Asher Kaufman, which has a lot on Ghajar and similar issues. It is available on the internet here: [2] . Zero^talk 14:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it! I was literally just editing a section on Kaufman on the Ghajar page! Lewisguile (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia

You said, "Transphobia and similar words derive from "hydrophobia" (rabies), referring to the madness of prejudice. They have very little to do with classic phobias." (

Interesting. Do you have any further information on this? Zeno27 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Check out Anti-Black racism#Negrophobia and colourphobia. That's the first example of a non-"classic" phobia. Basically, the abolitionists were implying that the pro-slavery movement was full of "mad dogs" who were infected by racism. The historic name for rabies at the time was "hydrophobia". There's a brief article on it here: https://newrepublic.com/article/128719/anti-slavery-roots-todays-phobia-obsession Lewisguile (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Afro–Latin Americans.

Hi Lewis! I do not really understand this edit. I provided a ref for it. Can you please let me know if I can undo it? I would like to make people know about Francisco Menéndez and I think this is the right article. Thanks! 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Primarily, it wasn't Francisco Menéndez [[Francisco Menéndez (black soldier)}} I was removing but the rest of the text. I'm happy to put Menéndez back in,but you should probably make sure his Afro–Latin American identity is clear and notable on his individual page first. At the moment, there isn't a clear link so he seems like a random insertion. (I've now found the other page.)

The other text I removed feels shoehorned in and because of that, the wording seems like it's trying to make a point. I originally moved this text from where it was before because it was a tangent in the history section. It isn't about the history of Afro–Latin Americans, but an overview of some people's view of a general "Hispanic" identity (which is much narrower than "Latin American" anyway).

It fits slightly better where it is now, but the tone and language used still isn't quite right. E.g., wording like "transcends" and "enriched" suggests a strong POV—that an Afro–Latin American identity is irrelevant. Which is an odd point to make in an article about that subject, unless we can somehow put it into context. We also try to say things without colouring people's views too much.

There is, of course, debate around how much race is or isn't important in Latin America. But the wording I reverted doesn't describe that debate—it just presents one side of that debate as if it were true.

So I think we need to find consensus on the points you're trying to make so we can make sure it fits where it is. What is it you want to say, and why? Is it in the right place? Is it best included here or in another article? I hope that helps. Lewisguile (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To follow up, I've done the following:

1. Removed the tangential information as per WP:COATRACK. I've summarised the relevant info, however, which you'll see here. I think this gets across your point without becoming WP:UNDUE.

2. I've added the list of names to the list already in the article, along with references where I could. You'll see this here.

Is there anything else you think we should add/change? Lewisguile (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Amsterdam

Hi Lewis, you have for the second time deleted references to Israeli fans' violence in the Amsterdam article: [3]. This was probably the unintentional result of an edit conflict. Could I ask you to please reinsert the relevant bits? The relevant bits are the first and last changes in the difflink, i.e. the underlined bits given below:

In the lead this is "placing blame both on the antisemitism of those who attacked Maccabi fans and the provocations and violence of Israeli hooligans"; further down, it is "a poisonous cocktail of antisemitism, hooligan behavior and anger about the war in Palestine and Israel and other countries in the Middle East", placing blame both on the antisemitism of those who attacked Maccabi fans and the provocations and violence of Israeli hooligans.

Regards, --Andreas JN466 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see! It was an edit conflict when you re-added this text. The first time I removed these references I did so because there were explicit concerns on the talk page that the Responses section was too long and that bit of text merely reiterates what the quote does. I thought it was covered by the quote, which describes "hooligan behaviour".

I could perhaps hyperlink that part of the text to Hooliganism to make it stronger? Or I can remove the direct quote altogether and use your text as a summary? Note that having both is likely to get re-edited or cause further disagreement, so I'd recommend one or the other.

I'll go with the summary option for now, but let me know if you prefer the alternative. Lewisguile (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented a version here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=November_2024_Amsterdam_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1257164973 We probably can't say "hooligan" in Wikivoice, so I tweaked that. You may also get challenged on this particular wording as it's one source that uses the "violent and provocative behaviour" description, whereas others just use the quote (which technically doesn't say who the hooligans are). Lewisguile (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

New Amsterdam aftermath

Hi @Lewisguile, I have added a new aftermath: ‘Last Friday the State Secretary of Finance Nora Achahbar, a member of the centre-right New Social Contract (NSC) party, one of the four parties in the Dutch coalition government, announced her resignation’. I think this is another relevant consequence of the events. However, I feel fingered by some editors when I add the situation of Dutch politics after these ‘riots’ like the opinion of other political parties (different from the government). So I ask for a second opinion on the relevance, and in case I am wrong and this is not important, I will support the deletion of this new aftermath. AyubuZimbale (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized that it was already included in other section. So I removed my contribution and just added a line and additional references. Apologies. AyubuZimbale (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, I saw it in the aftermath before, and think it is probably relevant. Lewisguile (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion

I apologise for not directly notifying you on this now closed discussion at ARE where I had mentioned your edits.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, no problem at all! I did see it in the end, almost by accident, and I'm glad it was sorted. I've also had some problems with aggressive edits inserting "self-ID" into Indigenous articles despite BLP, even in situations where the matter isn't even mentioned in the article (e.g., all of the Jacksons had the category added to their pages because one family member has apparently said something once). It was heartening to see I wasn't just going mad! I have attempted to fix this across multiple articles, but I fully expect a slew of reverts, alas. We really need an arbitration decision or something solid guidance, rather than an essay people seem to misinterpret anyway.

Lewisguile (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've been focusing on the articles of living people while I go through the names listed under the self-id categories. We are talking about hundreds made by the topic-banned user.[5] Any continuing disputes by other editors will probably go to arbitration enforcement or arbitration request. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I have been reverted twice by one user on separate pages already. They are continuing with the line that this is totally normal and non-controversial, even though I've told them otherwise. They have tried to use red-listed websites to prove this is consensus according to RS, and generally doing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing. See Robert Tessier and Cheri Honkala. However, I've already gone through 90% of the affected articles and removed the categories from them, although I haven't changed the wording in most, due to lack of time. Would it be helpful to split some of the work here? And if I do need to go to the arbcom with any of this, do you know the best way to do so? I've not had to raise something like this before. Lewisguile (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that you seek assistance first at WP:BLPN for articles of living people before attempting to initiate arbitration or arbitration enforcement. For dead people, WP:ORN. A more experienced editor on those noticeboards can determine whether arbitration is appropriate especially if there is a pattern by the disputed user across multiple articles. As for the hundreds of articles, I will continue to check on the category pages (for example) since the list of names there update whenever you remove a category from an article. We won't be stepping on each other's feet that way. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant. I appreciate the advice. Lewisguile (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"LGBT in Chile" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBT in Chile 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/2024 November 25 § LGBT in Chile until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH ^talk! 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out! Lewisguile (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Francisco Menéndez

Hi Lewis you have mistakenly erased some of the sources from 194.38.172.194. the one from Cano P.D (2019) la libertad de los esclavos fugitivos y la milicia negra en la florida. You have probably used the automatic reference but it doesn't work for this source. Thank you 194.230.146.72 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I'll get this restored now. Sorry about that. Lewisguile (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I've checked, and the source is still there. It just got moved down (see here and scroll down to the end of the Florida section). Basically, I made that section chronological, as there was repeated info and it jumped around a bit. Lewisguile (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You are using a reference called Revista la inquisición that is not the original source --194.230.146.72 (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)194.230.146.72 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh! My mistake. It is the source.194.230.146.72 (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There is one broken source—Landers 2013. But I can't seem to find which book that refers to. I'll go back through the edit history and see if it's there in an earlier draft. Lewisguile (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

He was part of the Spanish army as he was named captain. You can't be captain without being part of the army 194.230.146.72 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

He was specifically stationed in a militia, which multiple RSes refer to. They don't call him a soldier but a militiaman. We should follow the terminology used by RSes. I'm not fixed on that, if there are lots of sources describing him as a soldier instead, but we should probably take it to the talk page and ask others before changing it? Lewisguile (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I will search more sources in Spanish tomorrow. Thanks for your thorough work. 194.230.146.72 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I found Landers 2013. You deleted it when you removed the statement that he might have been Muslim. As a handy hint, you can create test versions of articles in your sandbox if you're still learning all the technical stuff, so you can use that to develop your drafts until you're ready to put it into the article. Lewisguile (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)