Talk:Juan Leal

Enough is enough
I am getting weary of fixing these numerous articles you create, the better part of them written in what would kindly be described as illiterate English. I realize that many of them are several years old, but no one else seems interested in investing the large amount of time and effort it takes to figure out just what the hell you're trying to say and re-writing it in intelligible English, to fact-checking your frequent misinterpretations of the original English sources (and even some of the Spanish ones), and to hunting down your additions of material with references to unreliable web sources.

It is extremely frustrating to spend hours editing one of your articles, only to discover you've copy and pasted long passages of someone else's copyrighted work, or copy and pasted very lightly edited Google translations (often not so good and barely intelligible themselves) of copyrighted material in Spanish.

It is even more frustrating to spend many hours working on one of these articles to produce a text that is written in clear English with reliable sourcing, and finding some satisfaction in that, only to discover that you've just added reams of more non-encyclopedic content written in garbled English. It is very disheartening.

I know you yourself invest much time in creating these articles in good faith, except for the copyright violations, but frankly, the text of most of them before rewriting is not up to Wikipedia editorial snuff.

The only recourse I see is to either give up and let you go on your merry way writing and expanding substandard articles that reflect badly on English Wikipedia, or to request that an admin take a look. I'm requesting an administrative review. Carlstak (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Long ago that I copy not the information of other web pages (and when I did it, which were a minority of the times in that I wrote in Wikipedia, was of accidentally way), except pages in Spanish (I only translate it, because in Wikipedia it can be allowed, but it is not allowed copy articles in English, so I have understood). In other way, in Wikipedia, although I do recognize my English is bad, I learned many English worlds and expressions reading and writing in Wikipedia. Since my first editions in Wikipedia, my English improved, although my articles still are difficult of understand (but this paragraph did not copy of Google Translate, while that in the past I would copied it of translator, although my spelling is still bad). In addition, in the last year I learned to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources (except in few exceptions), so that the previous years I posted more articles based in unreliable sources that in the last year (although I saw that some of my last articles have some sources unreliable). In addition, about the Juan Leal article, the information that I included after your editions, is the information that you deleted because it copied of the sources, but I recovered it, explaining with my words the text. In other way, I understand you don´t want double-revise the articles I posted because they are many and they are poorly written, but I put the label in them for other users, if they wanted, could correct them, because I wanted that these articles to be understood and I am worried about this idea. I am conscious my articles have a serious problem with the spelling and long ago that I have not posted no articles in Wikipedia until I improve my English. I just wanted improve Wikipedia with datas and information, as well as post articles that I thought the Wikipedia should have and that interest me.--Isinbill (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, Section "Enough is enough" should not be on the discussion page the Juan Leal's article, but on my talk page, because it speaks of the articles I posted as a whole, not only speak the Juan Leal's article (by the way, actually Wikipedia articles are of the entire community, not just the person who publishes them (by the standards of wikipedia), unlike what you indicated before (with the sentence "your articles"), so them can be improved for the Wikipedia community). This was an mistake that you did (this I think, because I don't know if it was just that or you try to humiliate me, with this public commentary in one of the articles I posted).--Isinbill (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this paragraph (grammar, spelling)? "During the Leal's administration, settlers petitioned the viceroy twice to recruit Native Americans working in the Spanish missions to farm their lands. The settlers maintained that missionaries should only exercise their ecclesiastical functions and forego trade or expansion of their agricultural lands, as they were only prepared to pursue activities relating to the church, and not those concerning the farmers. Also, the missionaries' explotation of the land and sale of the products would be detrimental to the settlers. However, the viceroy rejected both requests. The following year, 1733, Leal completed his term as mayor of San Antonio and was replaced by Antonio de los Santos. In 1735, Leal was appointed as town councilman and, soon after, was appointed mayor again. However, Leal was not considered a tolerant mayor, prompting his rejection by the military, clergy and settlers. Thus his second term as mayor only lasted one year and was replaced again by Antonio de los Santos". Does the paragraph has a correct spelling to be included in the article? This is the paragraph that you deleted because his spelling was poor. I had help to better the spelling the paragraph.--Isinbill (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's certainly better, but it still has errors. I've rewritten it and inserted it, with the relevant ref, in the article. This is a paraphrase of the original text from the TSHA web site, and I think it should be okay:
 * "During Leal's administration, the settlers twice requested that the viceroy assign Native Americans working in the Spanish missions to farm their lands (whether they were willing or not). The settlers maintained that missionaries should engage in ecclesiastical functions only and forego entering trade or enlarging their farm lands, since they were trained as clerics, and should not compete with the farmers in either endeavor. The viceroy, however, rejected both their requests. The following year, 1733, Leal completed his term as alcade of San Antonio and was replaced by Antonio de los Santos. In 1735 Leal was appointed as town councilman, and soon after was appointed to a life term as alcalde. Leal was not considered either tolerant or judicious by many among the military, the clergy, and the settlers themselves, and soon gained their general contempt. Consequently, his second term as mayor lasted only a year and he was replaced again by Antonio de los Santos." Carlstak (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Isinbill (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)