User talk:Gumr51

I wanted to wish you the best of luck on completing your translation project. 800 new articles would be quite the achievement! If you need assistance with anything--copy editing, wikifying, etc.--I would be happy to help. You might also ask at the talk page of the Archaeology WikiProject. There are also resources on that page (which I'm trying to add to) which you may find useful for getting consistency with other archaeology-related articles on the English Wikipedia. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Joseph Roe,

Very much appreciate the offer and I will definetely jump at it. The biggest problem I seem to be having is with understanding protocols, never mind text editing, which can be complicated. Hope you can appreciate the feeling, when my pages are deleted in Spanish, telling me I have violated norms, etc., but not telling me how or why and most importantly how to correct the problem. At any rate, I have survived that and trying to correct the problem.

I propose two things, one is that I will go and review the WikiProject Archaeology you suggest, and then will wait for your suggestion as to how get started. Indeed I have many articles, almost ready for publishing, some I have visited, some is strictyly enhanced text from wikipedia, plus internet research that I have made, etc. But in all cases I think I will need to review the references I am using and ensure no mistakes are made. Certainly could use some expert review of the text and whatever help I can get. Please note that I am a one man operation, and with so much information it can be complicated.

My goal is to disseminate bilingual (Eng. - Spanish) information, I am not seeking any personal goals nor recognition.

Thank you very much!

Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a matter of reading as many of Wikipedia's policy pages as you can handle, I'm afraid. They're endless, but ultimately for the best. It's not always easy to find out what you should be doing, but you'll get there eventually with a bit of trial and error. Copying what is done in (good) similar articles is useful when you're not sure what you should do and you can't find a policy.

That said, the cornerstone of Wikipedia's editing ethic is to be bold, so my advice would be not get too caught up in protocol and go ahead and make your articles. If they are useful and well referenced, which your first three seem to be, then that's all that matters and they shouldn't be deleted. And the beauty of a wiki is you don't have to get it right first time: there are thousands of other editors that will correct your mistakes later. I'll take a look at your articles so far and see what I can do to add polish. Sadly I know very little about American archaeology so I can't provide proper "expert review" of the subject matter, but perhaps somebody from WikiProject Archaeology will be able to help with that. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned on both their talk pages, on closer inspection, a lot of the material in Ometepe (archaeological site) and Zapatera (archaeological site) would be more at home on Wikisource. Basically, if you're transcribing or translating large sections of text, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, which summarises original sources in order to use them in encyclopaedia articles for a general audience. If that source text is in the public domain (for example because it's old and the copyright has expired), however, it's exactly what they want over at WikiSource. See WP:NOT and What is Wikisource?. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense, in fact I have the complete text and pictures of both books. How do I go about it. I could make a much more reduced text to name the sites. Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I've never contributed to Wikisource. This looks like a good place to start. For articles about the sites on Wikipedia yes, the thing to do is compress the information from the original source to only the most important facts, and then write them in an original way. You can add links to Wikisource from the Wikipedia articles using Template:Wikisource, placed in the References or External links section. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 19:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a Spanish version of my article, please do ! My Spanish is quite bad lol, and I really struggled through some of those sources so I'm quite happy to stick to writing in English. Thank you !!!! Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be my pleasure, I will do it. If you are in CR, please see if you can find interesting information on a site called el Guayabo, seems an interesting dicovery, as nothing much is known about archaeological sites in CR. Regards--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the pictures I used are on wikicommons, so you should be able to add them yourself. thank-you ! Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, did you notice the changes I made to the text in Spanish? Also updated a little bit your reference section.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP! I see you did Calixtlahuaca one I had been meaning to do. congrats!Thelmadatter (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am working in many other articles, if there are any you plan to work in the near future, let me know.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the Suchiquitongo article. There are far too few quality articles about Oaxaca here on Wikipedia. Saludos --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, it is my pleasure. Have many other, with some distractions are working my list in alphabetical order.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gumr51, thanks for all the great Mesoamerican articles! I just dropped by to tell you that one paragraph is still written in Spanish in El Cerrito (archaeological site) in the Background section. I might give try to translate it into English in the week if you haven't already done so by then. Cheers, jonkerz♠ 02:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jonkerz, You are welcome, it is my pleasure to chip in. Thanks for the input, already corrected, this is what happens when I get tired. Regards.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer you posted at WikiProject Mesoamerica - any help with WikiProject Mesoamerica is always welcome, just remember to cite your sources. If you have any specific queries, please contact me at my talk page. I am active on both English and Spanish wikipedias, but you're much more likely to get a rapid reply on my English talkpage. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some rather lengthy passaged of a primary source in translation that you inserted into two different articles. Wikipedia articles are not built pieacemeal by adding passages copied from different sources. Wikipedia is also not supposed to be a repository of translations of non-copyrighted primary sources. Your contributions have to be your own original contributions, interpreting and paraphrasing secondary and tertiary sources. I encourage you to read and follow WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOT and WP:V and also this very important policy about plagiarism WP:PARAPHRASE about how to correctly paraphrase sources. This latter is very important because it is actually important to be infringing on authors copyrights without copying text word by word, but by simply paraphrasing too closely. It is very important that you stick very closely to these policies, and several editors have been blocked in the past for having made copyrights violations - even sometimes when they were not aware that they were doing so. Copyrights issues are of extreme importance because they are necessary for maintaining wikipedias integrity they could potentially cause damaging legal problems for the entire project. For this reason copyright regulations tend to be enforced very strictly.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have detected obvious and blatant copyrights violations in two of the articles that you have written (I have only checked two this far): El Cerrito (archaeological site) and Las Flores (archaeological site). In both cases large chunks of text had been translated (apparently by machine) from the websites given as sources. This is not permitted. At this point I have to issue a very severe warning. If you do this again now that you have been told that it is not permitted I will not hesitate to block you. If you wish to keep editing here I would advise you to go back to the articles that you have written and remove all material that has been translated directly from a copyrighted source. (A second, less severe but still problematic, issue that I have noticed is that you insert material about tangentially related topics in to articles about other topics - that is not a good idea. Articles are about a single topic - we use wikilinks to refer readers to articles about related topics - that means that the article about Las Flores does not need to have a section about Huastec culture, Huastec language or the game of Patolli)·Maunus·ƛ· 02:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Have one quick solution to this problem. I will stop developing articles altogether. I am not a Wikipedia or copyright expert. Simply a fan wanting to dissemintae information. If your only approach is to block or delete articles, then my approach is to stop contibuting.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't have to be a copyright expert to understand the difference between copying or translating text written by others and writing your own text based on the knowledge you have gained from materials written by others. Copyright infringements on puts the entire project in danger for everyone, and therefore if you do not want to learn how to contribute without infringing on other authors copyrights then it is best that you do not contribute. if you want to continue contributing you must just remeber this simple rule: Copying is bad - writing in your own words is good, while referring to the texts that gave you the knowledge that you are writing down. If you can take this last approach then your contributioons are definitely very valuable and will be appreciated. You obviously have a good grasp of how to gain knowledge about Mesoamerica related topics and how to find reliable sources. Now you just need to start writing your own text instead of copying what others have written - once you do that your contributions will be an extremely welcome addition both o this project and to the Spanish wikipedia. (I suspect that it will be even easier for you to write your own text in Spanish). All of the articles that you have created have thew potential to become very good articles once they are written in a way that does not infringe on authors rights. I would be saddened if you choose to stop contributing rather than change the way in which you contribute, because you definitely have something valuable to contribute.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maunus... Dont stop contributing just because we need you to paraphrase what you write. Articles about Mexico are in dire need of work in Spanish or English.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, do appreciate the comments, please note that the Wikipedia environment has many flaws, however "normal" this can be. From the beginning I followed the "rules" provided by administrators, and I kept on asking for help (in some cases I did not understand the language and advice, even though I am a native Spanish speaker), help was received in English, in Spanish people simply made threats and deleted articles. What I referred to as a "cultural" problem in my Spanish talk page, is the fact that in English I have received help and guidance, not so in Spanish, people there are arrogant and authoritarian. Incidentally, this topic has been raised in the Wikipedia foundation mails and I made a contribution there. All I ask is that if an article has a flaw, somebody tells me specifically what the problem is (perhaps with examples) and I will gladly make corrections. The most important point I am trying to make is that everyone should understand that when someone is trying to collaborate, HELP HIM or HER. Wikipedia, the rules and the administrators are complex, so help people understand the complexity. I insist, Spanish administrators are arrogant and authoritarian, so must have a cultural ingredient, interesting topic for those with sociology interests.

Back into the problem, I have tried to change wording in texts translated, and as was advised, always cite references. I have tried to add relevant information into the articles, such as cultures, background information and other items pertinent to the particular sites. The biggest problem I had in Spanish Wikipedia is not what they do or say, but how they do it and say it. Hope you can appreciate that I will not waste nor spend time arguing with somebody I do not even know and not sure what their intellectual capabilities are, especially when they are hiding behind anonymous user names. About the lack of good Spanish archaeology articles, well I have found the problem. If you guys help me improve the quality of my articles I will gladly continue my contributions. In Spanish somebody needs to fix the problem first.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help you improve the quality of your articles. The first step is to change the way you write into one where you start by familiarizing yourself with the topic and then summarize it in your own words and then supply rferences to the sources that you have used. You should never copy a phrase or wording directly from a source. Our policy WP:PARAPHRASE explains really well how to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing by internalizing information and rewriting it in your own words.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gumr51, I recommend that you contact Ivanmartinez in Spanish Wikipedia [1]. He and I are part of Wikimedia México and one of many very dedicated contributors in Spanish WP. Im more than happy to work with you in English, especially on articles related to Mexico. Contact me on my page if you would like to collaborate on articles. By the way, you have very good English.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manus, I am game, I already reviewed the paraphrasing link provided. How do you suggest we go about this? Should we use an existing article or should we try it on a new one.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thelmadatter, already left a message to Ivan on his page. I will contact you later on your page, yes I can contribute and could also use help in facilitating the exercise, and yes, I can sometimes express myself better (or easier) in English. Thank you.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should try to work on one of the article's you created, but which I had to shave down to the bare minimum due to copyvios. You can pick the one you'd want to work on and I'll monitor the progress and come with suggestions and improvements along the way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I think Las Bocas could be a good exercise, I will work on it and I will post a note on your talk page once it is uploaded. From there on, I suggest we communicate on Las Bocas talk page, with changes and comments.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Its frustrating that there are so many idiots in the world, but fortunately there are some good eggs too. Im more than happy to help out with the article.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article you wrote. Im more concerned about a lot of irrelavant information (BTW citation number 4 did not match up with the link. Yes you need some background info, but a lot less than what is usually done in Spanish writing. Let me see if I can find some sources and read up on the site.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed it, I placed a comment on the talk page about it. I sent you a Wiki email asking for your e-mail so I can send you the ext files I use and from where I am now working.

BTW, I worked on a couple of archeological artices. El Tajín, Teotenango and Great Pyramid of Cholula. The last one is not easy to research. Monte Albán needs work too, but I havent found the energy to tackle that mess yet.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

got your email and responded. However, Id like to suggest again that you put the draft on a page in your userspace, Ill set it up if you like, so we can work on it and discuss it there.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please set up my userspace, not sure how to do it. Thanks--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DoneThelmadatter (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, somehow missed this message, I had not seen it. The draft is already there. Thanks a million.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I made changes here Sandbox The link you gave me, by the way, is for an entirely new account, not a sandbox. My link is your sandbox. Anyway, you are going to notice that I took a LOT of information out and I only worked on the first section and started on another. I took out what looks to be a new start of an article for Chalatzingo in the header. For the background, I took out information I could not directly relate somehow to Las Bocas. If Las Bocas is not in the Valley of Tehuacán, that needs to come out also. As for Caballo Pintado, I do not understand what you wrote (and noted it on the page). Are they two names for the same site (which is what I thought initially, or are they separate sites? If its the latter, Caballo Pintado cannot be described in this article, only that another archeologist was doing work nearby.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize it is a new account, will probably erase it later. The article looks good, but you did not comment on whether or not you see plagiarism. I concur on removing the part on Chalcatzingo, the background information is intended to be "regional background" and not just site background, hence the reference to Valle de Tehuacan is regional not site, and Las Bocas is not in this valley. Caballo Pintado is another name for the same site. I will do some more modifications and add some notes from the links you gave me. If you do not mind, I will copy and paste this exchange on the article talk page for the reference of others. Gracias--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Added some new notes from the link you provided (14), and replaced back some of the regional background. we could remove it altogether or cut it down some. It is inetended to give an idea the age of cultures in the state. (this notes are already on the discussion page of my sandbox 1--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Id rather finish working on Las Bocas before we do anything else. Yes, its a pain, but once you go through the process the first time, it gets a lot easier.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good, I concur and remain grateful for your help. I noticed Maunus made some revision, but I have not heard comments from him.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>>I've commented in the thread on my talk page. :)·Maunus·ƛ· 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC) As I commented on Manus' page, if we concentrate first on demonstrating the relationships among the various pieces of information, we will take care of most of the plagiarism problems. In English, you need to demonstrate why any piece of information in an article should be there, or how it relates to the topic. You cannot assume the reader will know. In my case, I do not know much of anything about Las Bocas, and I will avoid doing so, kind of to force you to explain it to me. That explanation is how you should be writing the article. If you feel overwhelmed, dont worry, that is normal at the beginning. (Im a writing teacher BTW) It WILL get easier.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, got it. Let us decide on one place to make all comments, so I dont miss any. Already placed some link comments on the sandbox talkpage. I am reviweing the rest of the comments.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thelmadatter, sounds like a very good exercise, love it. Just as long as you will not charge me for the extended education. Overall I think it will add readability quality to the text. The world needs more people like you.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that my signature is not appearing, although I usually place it, something is wrong with the systemj or my machine.Thanks--Raúl Gutiérrez 18:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Zapatera (archaeological site) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. 76.110.64.213 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can overwrite the redirect yourself. Like so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million, already done, still fixing the format a little.--Raúl Gutiérrez 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if you'd be willing to mediate disagreements that I'm having with another Wikipedia editor over the article on La Ciudad Blanca, one that falls under the WikiProject Archaeology and Wikiproject Central America for its content about archaeological sites in Honduras. The other editor and I have been going back and forth in edit wars for the past few weeks. Although we thought we'd reached an understanding, it hasn't worked. Most of the debates appear on the talk page for the article, although some also appear on each of our user talk pages. My principal complaints are that: 1) his editing of the article has been based heavily upon a popular magazine article, not reliable scholarly sources; and 2) that he continues to revert a large number of what I consider to be improvements to the article. He has accused me of inserting a personal POV, while I have denied that and have countered that in fact what is happening his that he is editing the article to reflect his POV. Ideally, as you know, the article should be as neutral, correct, and factual as possible as well as being based on reliable sources. I think we could both benefit from your experience an expertise in dealing with challenging issues of editing. If you don't have the time or interest, could you please refer this to another WikiProject Archaeology and/or WikiProject Central America editor? Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment of the situation is decidedly non-neutral (and false - I have made no attempt to insert my POV). Please also note that Hoopes has specifically canvassed several users that he feels will support his POV. He has therefore violated canvassing policies in an attempt to "win". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, this is the very same reason why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia, sorry, will not get involved.--Raúl Gutiérrez 23:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Amantio di Nicolao, I hate to rain on your parade, but there are things (organizational/administrative) Wikipedia needs to fix in order to keep people like me working on any project, I have seen many wonderful and experienced contributors leave the space, because of an elite of administrators that think (and in fact) own the space. And it is not because of what they say and do, but because of how they do it. Besides, they believe to hold the "knowledge" and there is no way anye "commoner" may dispute their rulings. Perhaps later, but thank you.--Raúl Gutiérrez 13:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Gumr51. — Ineuw talk 13:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gumr51. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mexico Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for the effort and labors you made to improve English and Spanish Wikipedia. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]