User talk:JoaquimCebuano

Anarchism

Hi JoaquimCebuano,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 04:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hi JoaquimCebuano! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from ToBeFree

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Unacceptably poor content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ibrah m c Abd al-Maj d" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ibrah m c Abd al-Maj d 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 March 12 § Ibrah m c Abd al-Maj d until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of TESCREAL for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TESCREAL is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TESCREAL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Tumnal (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Cultural and intellectual destruction of Palestine as it was created in violation of the WP:ECR sanction on the WP:ARBPIA topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what now? Can someone else publish the same content? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is extended-confirmed can edit about the topic, including creating that article. You may also do so once you become extended confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I have thousands of edits in other projects, i really think this should be accounted, even if not with the same status when compared to edits within the specific project. But anyway, i know you just applied the rule. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your understanding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agriculture in Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:JoaquimCebuano/sandbox

User:JoaquimCebuano/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JoaquimCebuano/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:JoaquimCebuano/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

First off, sorry you've had a less than pleasant welcoming to this place and this topic. I'm Nableezy, and I've edited in this topic area for longer than any sane person should, so take this advice with the grain of salt it deserves. The 30/500 rule is meant to prevent sockpuppetry and other bad faith actors from having the outsized influence on content they historically have had in this topic. I dont think it applies to you, and I dont think the removal of your EC rights was proper, so you could appeal that at AN, but if I can suggest a different approach. Make another 100 substantive edits outside of this topic so as to render moot any of the supposed gaming concerns that others may have and then ask for the right to be returned to you. You dont have to ask UtherSRG or ScottishFinnishRadish, you can ask at WP:PERM. You can appeal at WP:AN now if you want, but having looked at the edits you made I think youd likely be looking at a no consensus to overturn the removal. I hope you stick around and get the permissions restored to you, as the material Ive seen in your userspace should definitely be incorporated into several articles. I might take a stab at doing so myself too. nableezy - 22:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am really grateful for your message. This was an expected yet frustrating experience. I understand that the various rules mobilized against me were actually discretionary, but ended being used in their harshest form. The deletion of my own drafts seems like an absurd measure of censorship, I really dont understand where this came from.

But anyway. I think my course of action will be to develop this article in the lusophone wikipedia, where I dont expect to receive the same overwhelming pressure, given the difference in the distribution of beliefs... I really think there should be a specific article for this topic, even if it takes a difference approach - like covering this destruction as 'incidents' or as a subset of the genocide question, from the point of view of culture. Feel free to use anything from my draft, if it seems useful. I dont have the energy right now to insist about this here.

Bye! JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article: Israeli Damage to Archives, Libraries, and Museums in Gaza, October 2023–January 2024. "A Preliminary Report from Librarians and Archivists with Palestine."

Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope you don't mind, I've somewhat "stolen" your sandbox page, and moved it into draftspace. It's now at Draft:Palestinian cultural genocide. (I have also closed the deletion discussion.)

This means for the moment you no longer have a sandbox page (User talk:JoaquimCebuano/sandbox is now a redlink), but you can create a new sandbox whenever you want. Once you have the extended confirmed permission, you can edit that page in Draft space (and even move it to mainspace when it's ready). (Other editors may also edit it and later move it to mainspace; I might do so myself later.)

I did this because I think the deletion discussion was a waste of time, and the page is a good start to an article on a notable topic, and I don't want the content to disappear. But I'm not an admin so all of what I did might be reversed, maybe before I'm done writing this message, who knows.

I should note that under our rules you still can't edit anything related to the Israel/Palestine conflict until you are extended-confirmed, but I hope you do ask for it back (whenever you feel like doing so) and continue editing here. It's a good start to an article and I thank you for working on this, and sorry for all the trouble. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three additional interesting articles:

Israel's Relentless Bombing Erases Gaza's Heritage Sites (8 February 2024). By Hesper Cane for Sidewalls magazine. "Once a testament to a rich cultural history, Gaza now lays in ruin, rubble, and debris, with more than 200 heritage sites damaged and destroyed."
The war in Gaza is wiping out Palestine’s education and knowledge systems (8 Feb 2024). By Chandni Desai for The Conversation. "Scholars say Israel is intentionally destroying education and cultural institutions in Gaza."
The Art World Responds to Israel's War on Gaza (8 Feb 2024). A Sidewalls magazine editorial.

Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Rabbi Moses Isserles

The page Rabbi Moses Isserles has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TESCREAL work

Hi!

I am trying to work on the TESCREAL article that got deleted a year ago. Since then, it's had a fair amount of notable attention, so I'm working on going through the draft process, as per advice from a undeletion mod. Draft:TESCREAL

As you were the original author, thought you should know. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to know someone took this task, i would have tried to make it again myself, but i dont think it would help to have the same person publishing it twice. The article is way better, i hope it stays this time! Thanks! JoaquimCebuano (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Palestinian cultural genocide

Hello, JoaquimCebuano. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Palestinian cultural genocide, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Existential risk studies has been accepted

Existential risk studies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the fast review!

I would like to ask if you think its too much to change the redirection of existential risk to Existential risk studies... I hope the article makes it clear enough that existential risk is a concept defined by ERS theorists, and only related to the current redirection, which is global catastrophic risk. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding personalization of content disputes

I would like to repeat my advice: please avoid focusing on your adversary when in content disputes. In Talk:Existential risk studies, you repeatedly focused on Weyer instead of the dispute content, which made you appear combative. There was no good reason to go to ANI either, as the NPOVN and RfC were already playing out in your favor. Generally, being successful at ANI requires a lot more than you have supplied. And if multiple editors suggest to you to drop a certain course of action, disagreeing and continuing is usually a bad idea. This is just how things are, being right or wrong is only secondary to that, sorry. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the ANI notification had a satisfactory effect, given that I received the explicit recommendation to revert edits and restore status quo, as well as the increased scrutiny over these removals. Before that, no one took the interest for more than two thousand bits of deleted information. I may sound combative, this is probably a personality trait, but I have been seeking mediation and policy-based actions, and this should weight more than the appearance of moderation followed by arbitrary measures. Anyway, I am really grateful for your attention to this matter and I hope that others may also provide fresh perspectives in this dispute. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]