User talk:Larataguera

Thacker Pass lithium deposit
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm concerned about your edits to the Thacker Pass lithium deposit. In particular, are all for that article. Please review WP:SPA and WP:COI. Your recent edit had a link to a fund-raising site, which I removed. You may also want to review WP:PROMO. I'm all for having a good article that has references that are WP:RS. Cxbrx (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I was reluctant to link to the fundraising page, but the statement on that page was the only first person statement I could find from the indigenous group in question. (It had not occurred to me to leave it uncited). I agree that it is best to simply leave it uncited at this time, and I'm sure that future coverage of these events will provide better citations. Thanks again! Larataguera (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Missing and murdered Indigenous women, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
 * Copying text from other sources
 * Policy on copyright
 * Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
 * Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.


 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Environmental defender info in Right to a healthy environment
As much as I think its important to include information about environmental defenders across Wikipedia, the main Right to a Healthy Environment article needs to focus on that right explicitly -- there are several articles (including Human rights defender, land defender and Water protectors) which provide good definitions, and there might be a good way to handle some kind of centralization over the current disambiguation at Environmental defender). Keep up the great work, but lets try not to let scope creep happen on really well scoped articles :) Let me know if there is a good way for me to help in thinking that through, Sadads (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your thoughts on these edits! I certainly agree with the need to keep articles well scoped. I also see that there is some variation in scoping for other articles on human rights. Some are limited to legal definitions in treaties, etc; some include broader information. What I was trying to do was to include information about the fact that three people per week are being killed globally to defend this particular right (and many more imprisoned, attacked, or otherwise harassed). This is particularly relevant for this article, because the ongoing trend of violence against people defending the right to a healthy environment is global in nature (meaning that it is properly located in a global article and not only in regionally specific articles about the fights where these harassments and killings occur).
 * Also, if it is within the scope of this article to include the work of people who write treaties and make UN resolutions to establish the right to a healthy environment, then I think it is also within the scope to include the work of many more people who are risking their lives to establish the same right. The bottom-up character of work done by environmental defenders is quite relevant in the establishment of a right to a healthy environment. (See, Knox). (I'll allow that I didn't make all this clear in the edits you reverted.)
 * I appreciate that you added some information into the lead with links to relevant articles. And maybe that's enough for now, but I do think that some expansion on the role of environmental defenders to establish the right to a healthy environment (and the violence they face) would be necessary for a well-scoped but comprehensive article on this subject. The work isn't all being done by people who write treaties. Curious if you have any thoughts or suggestions about how to achieve that, or simply your perspective on what further information this article should contain?
 * Lastly, I would like to see a centralized article on the subject of environmental defenders, and if you have thoughts on that I'd be happy to hear them. I find the current disambiguation at that page to be rather awkward. Larataguera (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Its tricky because the three articles, basically cover the whole breadth of the space, and in some ways Land defender is the main article on Environmental defender (maybe there is room for a rename?). To include info related to the defenders in Right to a healthy environment, I think it would need to be based on the analysis of experts on how the right support environmental defenders. I.e. in the impact section -- describing how the right to a healthy environment helps in the defense of individuals -- or some of the early uses of Escazú Agreement to protect the rights of defenders, etc.
 * There could be a way of moving the Land defender article in a rename to environmental defender -- but I wasn't sure if there is a bespoke meaning of land-defender that needs to be broken out from that article -- or if the sources of that article are using land defender in some much more nuanced (is there any substantive difference in the use of "land defender" vs "environmental defender"). In the case of "Water protector" this is a substantive difference in the indigenous communities of North America and in its usage, so that article should be kept seperate methinks, Sadads (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for these thoughts. I think I can include the information about environmental defenders that is relevant to right to a healthy environment in the impact section of that article, and you're probably right that this is the best way to do it. Thanks for that suggestion.
 * As for the distinction between land defenders and environmental defenders: a survey of scholarly articles will show that 'environmental defender' is the most frequently used term and more general than 'land defender' or 'water protector'. When the term 'land defender' is used, it is typically in conjunction with 'environmental defender'; 'water protector' is much less common. The media will use all of these terms almost interchangeably along with 'activist', etc,--probably depending in part on the self-identification of whoever they're interviewing.
 * I had suggested consolidating the articles Land defender and Water protector at Talk:Land defender. Perhaps you've seen that discussion, but there was some resistance to the idea. I probably didn't propose it very clearly or in the best terms... (I'm clear that there's a difference between these concepts, but I think a centralized article could handle the overlap between them more succinctly; more clearly place them in the context of global trends; and more accurately represent the language used in scholarly articles, international agreements, etc). I'm not exactly sure how to go about achieving that from here though... Larataguera (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Smallison that water protector shouldn't be merged -- it has a very nuanced seperate meaning than a more general Human Rights Defender meanng of environmental defender. But I would be open to a rename of land defender to environmental defender -- I haven't seen any substantive non-environmental defender use of the concept, and they are frequently treated as interchangable in the literature., Sadads (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @SadadsI strongly don't agree that land defender be moved to environmental defender. In Canada land defender is commonly (and increasingly) used in mainstream media and is used specifically in reference to Indigenous land protection efforts. I have been thinking about this issue as in the past two weeks numerous land defenders were violently arrested by Canada's national police force, the RCMP. I would support making the article specifically about land defenders in Canada. Again, as I have previously mentioned to @Larataguera when they suggested this a few weeks ago, the term "land defender" is very specific to Indigenous peoples and I would prefer it to be kept conceptually different.Smallison (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In human rights work I believe resistance is in important action and I believe keeping Land defender and Water protector are important parts of Indigenous resistance to subsuming these kinds of actions into mainstream (and colonial) concepts of human rights. If we are to take this work seriously and to uphold the work of knowledge equity it is important to recognize where plurality is needed rather than neat and tidy categories and pages. If @Larataguera you want to better reflect the work of environmental defenders I suggest you consider writing an article on that topic and using that space to keep track and move content you feel is relevant out of land defenders. There really shouldn't be an issue with linking to related articles and I think it's important to respect terminology and subjects are not the same across all regions. Smallison (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Smallison For international accessibility there is need for a substantial rewrite of content on Land defender then: a quick spot check points at a lot of stuff that uses the larger concept of environmental defender or activist or something more specific like water protector, and how its being summarized in the current article interprets the sources differently than how they are being described in the original sources. I empathize with your goal/caution, but the current article is extremely confusing and doesn't orient the reader clearly on the topic. It seems like a big project, but its probably worth doing in the long run as it would create more clear spaces for gathering future sources,  Sadads (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * is certainly correct that there are many people defending land outside of the human rights framework (because land is sacred, because they view themselves as part of the land, etc). I think that Smallison is saying they would like to reserve Land defender to describe this kind of work (ie, indigenous defense of land outside the human rights framework--is that correct?)
 * Of course, however these people self-identify, various governments and NGOs will still define them as 'environmental defenders' and view them through a human rights lens, and this is a very colonial outlook. I agree. I think we should have a page describing that outlook at Environmental defender instead of the present disambiguation page. I think this is acceptable to both Smallison and, correct? (It's worth noting that not all uses of 'environmental defender' use the term from a human rights perspective, but I do think it's fair to say that this is an increasingly common use of the term.)
 * The page at Land defender would then become challenging to develop, because people defending land outside colonial frameworks will somewhat defy categorization in general, and they will actually use lots of different terms to describe themselves, including 'land defender', but also including 'water protector', 'activist', and many other terms. Wikipedia is actually a colonial project, and it's a bit hard to describe things that defy categorization while meeting all the rules for reliable sources, etc., although I'm willing to give it a try. I agree with Sadads that the current article at 'Land defender' is confusing, and also that it doesn't reflect the sources very well. This might be somewhat unavoidable (if it is scoped to describe an anti-colonial perspective), but I think it could be improved; and if the intention is to describe indigenous land protection outside the human rights framework, it may benefit from some sources that explicitly critique the human rights framework as a colonial construct.
 * Am I accurately reflecting the views expressed in this conversation, or have I missed something? Thanks Larataguera (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to take a first stab at overwriting the dab page @Larataguera with content from places like Land defender and Human rights defender, I am happy to help in doing some of the organizing -- also note that you can use -- to bring leads across from other articles. So the current section of Human rights defender could be the lead of the new article, and the new article could include the leads of land defender and water protector as subsections, Sadads (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All that to say, I think you are accurately summarizing the current consensus, Sadads (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * --ok, I'll give that a shot. I'll probably spend a few days getting my sources together beforehand., I thought I'd share this source that I think does a good job of weighing the various different terms that people are using. My intention would be to put together an article for Environmental defender that keeps a broad view such as that reflected in this article. Thank you both for your thoughts! Larataguera (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] and @Sadads I continue to believe that Land defender article needs to be separate from a general article on environmental project or activists. However, it is true that the article is not the best reflection of the topic and I have not had capacity to develop. While we might all concede that Wikipedia is a colonial project, I don't believe that means we should not consider different perspectives, keep up the colonial project, or not consider how we might equally map Land defender in a constellation of articles about Indigenous land rights. I do not agree that NGOs and governments will define land defenders as environmental rights activists. Governments and NGOs, as far as I am aware, see the Indigenous perspective first. And land defence is intimately connected with Indigenous sovereignty--something that is simply not part of environmental defence. Likewise water defence is also bound up with Indigenous sovereignty. It is not that the term is outside human rights frameworks, UNDRIP is often cited within land defence actions, but that it's connections are more strongly felt in connection to law. In Canada the connection is related to "consent" as should be followed by the nation state in relation to UNDRIP and to full recognition of Indigenous land title and traditional governance. If you are open to it, I would rather rework the Land defender article to have a clearer definition / connection to the use within the Indigenous context because it is closely allied with legal frameworks. Smallison (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what you mean that indigenous sovereignty is not part of environmental defense...most environmental defenders are indigenous people defending their cultures and territories. But anyway, I think we're on the same page that I'm going to work on something at Environmental defender, and I think it's great if you rework the article on Land defender to better reflect your idea about what that should be. I'll be interested to see what the difference is in the end. Thanks again. Larataguera (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you do not understand what I mean. Environmental defence has little resonance or usage in the context of the continent / country I am located in--including in research and mainstream media, so just don't feel compelled by "environmental defence". "Land" also has very specific connotations in English. I give up given there is "consensus". Also, please capitalize "Indigenous".Smallison (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just having come across this, re: 's points on the specific and extremely important relationships/duties to land in an Indigenous context, especially on Turtle Island, I think this article by Colville scholar Dina Gilio-Whitaker might be helpful to you, . Paired alongside Kyle Powys Whyte's points on Indigenous North American Systems of Responsibility, it should be clear how land defenders' duties and goals differ from broadly, environmental defenders' focus on access to a healthy environment.
 * While Gilio-Whitaker's article is in the context of environmental justice as it relates to Indigenous peoples in the United States, it might be helpful r/t this discussion on duties to and relationships with land, and Indigenous sovereignty, in the case of land defenders, and how land defense in an Indigenous context cannot and should not be conflated with other, broadly environmental activist causes. Indeed, Wikipedia is a colonial project, but as says, that does not mean it has to continue to reproduce colonial violence and erasure, or that Indigenous voices and methodologies need to be ignored or colonial voices privileged. --Hobomok (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much for the specific references to help explain your view. My comment about Wikipedia being a colonial project was intended partly to point at its foundations in colonial epistemology--the same epistemology that Linda Tuhiwai Smith critiques here. I agree that we should not ignore Indigenous voices or methodologies, but finding ways to fit those voices into Wikipedia's colonial framework is difficult. It's likely that including any of the sources you've provided here into land defenders would be seen as original research, because they don't talk about land defenders specifically. Anyway, I'm having that sort of trouble elsewhere. But there's no harm in trying. I've been happy to see Gilio-Whitaker and Whyte's sources getting into Environmental racism. I think they fit in pretty well there and are likely to stick.
 * Can you clearly articulate a difference between land defenders and environmental defenders--and then support that difference with sources? I'm not sure that I can. And if you can't then the colonial epistemology says the difference doesn't exist, and that's just the playing field we're on here. Maybe it's a waste of time--I don't know yet. Anyway, Whitaker points to Indigenous Peoples' special legal status, and Indigenous land rights could be the substantive distinction. That's worth a shot. Maybe the page can just go along fine as it is and nobody will mess with it, or it'll even improve. I'll be interested to see, and I'm happy to contribute as I can. I just haven't quite figured out how it fits into the framework, and I suspect that if it doesn't fit into the framework then it's a fragile page. I'm also fairly new to Wikipedia, so I don't really know how these things go. Larataguera (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Larataguera I am unsure of why you are so convinced the page is so fragile. I am not new to Wikipedia, though I spend much more time on Wikidata. I again invite you to consider whether your project is as valid as you think. And why you are so determined to wrap land defenders in with a environmental defender. While I do not have time right now to wholescale address the article at the moment due to my work schedule, I again urge you to consider your motivations and the ways you are so dismissive of a whole area of documentation. If we truly care about Indigenous rights should we not also be questioning what is considered "notable sources"? If we are not, how are we truly upholding Indigenous peoples and culture? --including and especially on a space like Wikipedia. @Hobomok has made valid points.Smallison (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While I recognize that @Sadads made the original proposal to you to collapse land defender into environmental defender I believe this is faulty. Like water protector, land defender has a specific understanding and context and I do not think it is helpful or desirable to keep on a track toward a merge. I also think it is important in your work to understand that not all Indigenous communities are in favour of UN-based human rights frameworks so articles on topics on issues such as these should not be highly structured under these kinds of rights frameworks.Smallison (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I'm not determined to wrap land defender in with environmental defender. If anyone proposes a merge, I will oppose the merge in the hope that you or someone will edit land defender to clarify its scope. Perhaps the page is not fragile. That would be great. In the meantime, you've conceded that it's "not the best reflection of the topic." I'd love to improve it, but I don't know how.
 * I understand that not all Indigenous communities are in favour of UN-based human rights frameworks, and I included that criticism in the new page on environmental defenders. If I've missed something, please add it. I think what it comes down to is that the term 'land defender' has already been colonised. I didn't do that. I wish it had never happened. Maybe you, or or someone else can save it. If that happens, I will applaud and figure out how to do one of these barnstar things. In the meantime, I will be looking for uncolonised terms. Maybe Land back? I don't know. Larataguera (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Climate Change in the United States
Appreciate the help at Climate Change in the United States with a certain condescending editor. However, this latest back and forth, where they have decided to singlehandedly refuse to allow “man camps” on the page because they’ve never heard it used, or because it “harms men,” despite evidence of its use in the field, and its use in secondary popular and academic literature, is final proof to me that collaborative editing is not possible with this person. They have zero desire to find a middle-ground and will take a mile if you give them an inch. I appreciate your patience with them and what you have added, which is mostly what I was attempting to add to begin with, but was stonewalled at every turn for whatever reason.—Hobomok (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was going to ask if you felt I'd restored the most important content with Whyte and Todd. I'm still hoping to get time to restore some of the TEK content that got taken out. I haven't had a chance to look over those articles, but Gregory Cajete has published material that relates traditional knowledge to climate change. There's more too. Dan Wildcat's book would be relevant. I think this would all have to go under the adaptation section.
 * I'm still trying to figure out if it's possible to meaningfully contribute to this platform with it so based in colonized epistemology. Many editors definitely believe that they are objective and don't have a bias--which is our global crisis in a nutshell (to the extent you can put it in a nutshell). I'm beginning to be discouraged, but I wasn't too optimistic to begin with. I definitely don't think it's useful to get bogged down in discussions with many editors and produce the wall of text that you ended up with at talk:climate change in the US. Thanks for all your work. If there were a lot more people insisting on the content we're adding, I think it could work--and maybe they're around here somewhere. Larataguera (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, what you’ve added re: Whyte and Todd is what I was trying to add—thank you.
 * I agree with the adaptation section and your sources, although I think it will be very important to note that colonialism obviously harmed traditional relations to the environment prior to these relations being utilized to combat climate change. Whyte’s “Our Ancestor’s Dystopia Now” is good for this, and it’ll be important to mention, in my mind, that TEK is now colonially co-opted and extracted from as an adaptation method. Traditional burning in Northern California is a good example. Work by Kirsten Vinyeta, Kari Norgaard, Ron Reed, Frank K. Lake, and others would be helpful there. Paul Guernsey’s “ The infrastructures of White settler perception: A political phenomenology of colonialism, genocide, ecocide, and emergency” might also be a good source re: the way climate change is framed in relation to fire management vs how it appears to Indigenous peoples in the west. Of course I might be telling you stuff you already know, and I do not in any way want to issue this work and these authors as a command. Rather, I want to offer sources that I know are solid and might be useful to you given what you’re trying to add.
 * I do agree with you that a wall-of-text is not the way to go here. I was trying, though, to keep things moving until someone came along, noticed what I was trying to add (and was being blocked from adding because of some personal issue), and was able to add it, which you did. I appreciate the help.
 * I am getting very tired of being on this website. The issues I continually run into here are representative of issues around popular science discourse, its racist disregard of Indigenous modes of being and thinking, misunderstandings around Indigenous people on Turtle Island’s relation to Turtle Island itself by people who shouldn’t be speaking for Indigenous peoples and their relations, and of course, colonial superiority and entitlement. I wish I could say this is surprising, but it is not. Although unsurprising, it is still frustrating. This is what so many students and Indigenous colleagues I work with run up against in their day-to-day lives: being told that their cultures, traditions, and lives do not matter by someone. In this case, it is someone on the internet who edits bowling articles and watches Bill Nye on CNN, and is so entitled to belittle and discount someone’s way of life and experience. This type of person, though, is everywhere. This interaction is simply representative of these issues. Infuriating.—Hobomok (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Larataguera, don't be discouraged. Though you're fairly new here, you've shown a recognition that this is an encyclopedia. WP:NEUTRAL Point of View isn't just a suggestion; it's a WP:PILLAR of the website. It's OK to hold an agenda, but it's the facts supporting the agenda expressed in independent reliable sources that may be presented here in a balanced way, so that readers can draw their own conclusions. See WP:NOTAFORUM. At the proper points in the proper articles, it's proper to express a notable person's viewpoint if it is presented in context: "Donald implied immigrants are drug dealers" but not "Immigrants are drug dealers".
 * I'm assuming you realize that it would be a lie to say I opposed the "man camp" terminology merely because I hadn't heard of it myself. Much like posting content condemning Thomas Jefferson for advocating "changing" the "climate" to hurt native Americans grossly contorts the term Climate change as used on Wikipedia, a failure to follow WP:NPOV—failure to choose most neutral terms possible—actually hurts the credibility of any agenda. WP:NPOV is not "racist disregard of Indigenous modes of being and thinking" or "belittling and discocunting someone's way of life and experience". — RCraig09 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, User:RCraig09, I’m not going to argue with you on another user’s talk page about a clumsy edit I made, wherein I tried to better represent a source that I’m not familiar with, that another editor added to a page. I’ve already explained to you multiple times that I didn’t add that source, that I was simply trying to clean up that editor’s work, and that I was instead trying to add work from Whyte, Todd, and Wildcat, which user:larataguera has added. (see bullet point 7, from over a week ago, where I explained this to you).


 * If you want to follow me around Wikipedia so that you can disregard Indigenous experience and study because, according to you, Indigenous scholars’ work is subjective, and it fails “factually and scientifically” since these scholars aren’t “scientists”, then go ahead and spin your wheels. It’s a really weird way to spend your time, and while I’m flattered that I seem to be part of this new obsession you’ve landed on, I’m not going to continue to feed into whatever you’ve got going on here.


 * user:larataguera, I apologize for this spilling over onto your page. I did not intend for this to happen. So strange.—Hobomok (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Larataguera!


Happy New Year! Larataguera, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Environmentalism of the poor
I just reverted the changes you made to Environmentalism of the poor. I support the creation of the article. I suggest you get a larger stub drafted before you take it live. look here: User:Larataguera/sandbox. Let me know if you meet the DYK requirements and I'll nominate it for DYK. Cheers. --evrik (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I just did a whole article that I put up today on Man camps. (Honored if you'd like to nominate that one!). I'd like to write one for Environmentalism of the poor, but I'm not sure when I'll have time. If you don't want the stub, can you please redirect to Environmental justice instead? That would be more accurate. I personally think the stub is better than a redirect (especially an inaccurate one)--obviously a full article is better, but I'm not sure when I can get it done right now. Thanks again for your thoughts! Larataguera (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and redirect it yourself, just make sure that there is a section that mentions the concept. I'll look at man camp now. --evrik (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's done. Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you redirected it to a specific section. --evrik (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * new article up today at Environmentalism of the poor. Happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Man camp
Look here: Template:Did you know nominations/Man camp. Add a better hook if you have one. Also, I believe in the Wikipedia:Athena effect {i.e. once you have finished your draft, copy and paste the final code to the new article. No one needs to see all the earlier drafts. ;-) --evrik (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Environmental defender
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Man camp
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Environmentalism of the poor
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Mirador mine
Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Warning for derogatory statements about indigenous peoples
Such content is by Wikipedia and as such may be hidden from public view at any time by an administrator (or in extreme cases, suppressed by oversighters). Articles or files of which the only purpose is to attack, harass, threaten or disparage certain people or groups are speedily deleted. If you add hateful, derogatory, or bigoted content again, as you did at Talk:Ontology, you may be without further notice. Specifically, please cease from making broad disparaging statements about the beliefs or opinions of "colonizers" and "indigenous peoples" as you did on Talk:Ontology.


 * I just came across this discussion on Ontology and this accusation/warning is absolutely ridiculous. I recommend pointing editors toward Todd (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/johs.12124) and Coulthard/Simpson (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26359594).   —Hobomok (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit: and (somehow) just recalling Kim Tallbear’s discussion on why new materialisms and the ontological turn aren’t “new” at all (https://books.google.com/books?id=z895DgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA179&dq=kim+tallbear+cryopolitics&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q=kim%20tallbear%20cryopolitics&f=false), which throws a lot of water on points made on the ontology talk page about Indigenous ontologies being a “new field of study” mainly in anthropology. While Todd is an anthropologist, Tallbear teaches in environmental thought and her PhD is in History of Consciousness, and Coulthard is a philosopher through and through. Sorry for the late addition. Discussions like this are why I’ve gone into semi-retirement.—Hobomok (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for these sources and for words of support. I suppose I should count this whole interaction as a success? There was no mention of Indigenous ontologies on the Ontology page before (in spite of extensive published work by both Indigenous and settler scholars, as I'm sure you know)  and now there is. If I have to get called a racist to do that, then whatever. The encyclopedia definitely needs it, as the bias on Wikipedia is intense. It's frankly irresponsible for this platform to present itself as a global source of information when the view is so narrow. (But if you try to fix that, you're WP:NOTHERE?!)
 * I don't blame you for stepping away. It's no fun being gaslighted like this when the person who is literally saying we can't talk about differences between Indigenous and Western ontologies thereby erasing those differences and pretending the modern colonial worldview is all that exists  comes over here and tells me I'm a bigot! Wikipedia is a total dumpster fire. Larataguera (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Seasons greetings
Thanks, and happy new year to you! I hope it's a good one Larataguera (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Kiobel
Hey, sorry about Morrison. My point was only that I think the content you are adding would improve the main article Extraterritorial_jurisdiction, where Morrison is discussed along with the ATS cases. You don't have to work on that article, I just thought it would be a benefit to that article. I don't think what you are adding about "touch and concern" needs to be removed from the Kiobel article, but your edits removed "mere corporate presence", which I've restored, I also added appropriate secondary sources, expanded on the division in lower courts and included the full language from the case for reference. We're missing articles for the lower court cases, if that's something you're interested in working on. Gnominist (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks for communicating about this. Sorry for the slow reply! I think your recent additions to Kiobel look good. If I get time to look through some of these other suggestions you've made I will. Thanks again. Larataguera (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , thanks! It's nice that someone's noticed my work! Thanks also for helping out at Grassy Narrows road blockade. I'm sure the article could be filled out a lot more, but at least it's a start. Thanks again! Larataguera (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Every article is a work in progress...I very much appreciated the comments you made about the fields in the mining infobox. Did you ever raise that at the WikiProject mining? I started a lot of articles about mines and mining and I strongly agree with your thinking.
 * I enjoy making improvements to articles and am keen to improve articles about environmental justice. If you ever want me to help out on articles you are working on, feel free to give me a ping. CT55555 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I haven't raised that question at WikiProject mining. Honestly, I think I've been cynical about how it would be received. But maybe I should do it anyway. Thanks for offering to help out with EJ topics. I've considered pitching a WikiProject Environmental Justice, but have been waiting to see if there would be enough support.
 * Are you familiar with the EJatlas? It would be a fairly straightforward project to simply transfer conflicts from this atlas into Wikipedia, because most of the secondary sources are already in one place. I think this would make a big difference. But there are thousands of entries, so it's a big job. Larataguera (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it is better to have a WikiProject EJ, or if it is better for EJ aware people to join existing projects and make them better? Maybe both. I would support you at WP Mining.  I was not aware of EJ Atlas. I don't even think I wrote the words Environmental Justice before today, but I think it's a lens I've been applying to my editing here as I've done the mining articles. CT55555  (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I'll bring that idea up at WP Mining one day soon. I'm not really sure about the best way to go about everything. But I appreciate the opportunity to bounce ideas around. Thanks again! Larataguera (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

ET academic resources
Nice to see your profile on your user page here; I think we've long passed the epoch where those arguments would be seen as "advocacy". Collective knowledge in Wikipedia, including self-knowledge about our current limitations and biases, has improved over the years - that's my impression, anyway.

Anyway: there is a lot of research literature by Addis Ababa University students and faculty at http://etd.aau.edu.et (seems to be http-only, no https). Mostly not quoted by the NYT, Guardian or BBC, but quite likely usable in en.Wikipedia as expert knowledge. Other Ethiopian universities may have institutional repositories too. Since the internet/electricity/phone/physical-person-access blockade on Tigray Region is gradually being lifted, Mekelle University and other Tigrayan universities will (hopefully) gradually restore their online resources if they were backed up prior to the looting, or recreate them from scratch; http://www.mu.edu.et currently states that it should be ready "soon". Boud (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I just scrolled up and saw the Ontology/Indigenous Ontology issue, where it looks like you were accused of bigotry and of WP:IDHT... I don't know if it makes you feel any better, but that debate looks like it was a lot less time-consuming and destructive than many Wikipedia editorial debates I've seen in the past. Anyway, sources for ET knowledge, at least from the intellectual centre of federal power in ET, are at the AAU repository. Boud (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for dropping by, and thanks for the resource. I'll be sure to check it out!


 * I'm glad you feel that Wikipedia's self-awareness has improved over the years. My current impression is that the bias is extremely intense. And if Wikipedia has half the impact I suspect it does, then that bias is pretty dangerous. I've not really been here long enough to know what things used to be like, but it does seem like the WP:CSB project has gone dormant. That doesn't mean that people aren't working to counter bias in other ways of course (as you seem to do with your contributions in Ethiopia), but given the extent of the bias, I do wonder why that project has stalled if people are truly aware of the problem? And the articles about Bias on Wikipedia are rather poor in my opinion. (ie, that link isn't even a full article!)


 * I Hope my comments have been helpful over at Amhara genocide. I'm not really sure I have much more to add there. It seems like I'm saying the same things over and over again. It's certainly an important topic, so I'd like to see the article do it justice, but I'm not sure how to contribute without just re-writing the article myself or something, and I don't think I really want to do that... It'll be interesting to see how the RM closes. Thanks again. Larataguera (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Better that I don't comment here specifically about the process at Amhara genocide, because that might be seen as you and I colluding together.Regarding the evolution of Wikipedia processes, I see that it was nearly 20 years ago, and that I got accused of doing  a few edits fairly soon after. Scroll through the "oldest" part of the history and you'll see edit wars that today would have got cut off much faster, and the first talk page archive of that article that took up quite a bit of energy with very slow progression. The Western mainstream media has finally dared to touch this particular subject again right now, with a current controversy + censorship by Musk. Personally, I find the evidence for "pogrom" convincing, but I'm not going to propose changing the name to that, nor to genocide; there are plenty of people with various POVs paying attention to the article (358 page watchers). Anyway, no point arguing about impressions of improvements - objective research can be done on that sort of question, but I'm only describing a personal impression here. Boud (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, there's a lot of objective research about bias on this platform. I've added some of it at Academic studies about Wikipedia, and I would like to add more but not sure when I'll get to it.As far as personal impressions go, I'm glad yours are positive, but I got accused of advocacy just today. Larataguera (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks ! I've noticed and appreciate your work to counter bias as well! I had a few questions for you actually, but I will put them on your page. Larataguera (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Bintang Mining Company
I noticed them at Rennell Island bauxite mine and a quick google search indicates they are notable. Do you have any plans to create an article on them? If you don't, I might do so. (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Go for it! I wondered about an article for BTM, and also the mine owner APID, because neither seems to have one. But I have no plans for either. Thanks for tying up all those loose ends at Rennell Island bauxite mine! It's nice to have a another pair of eyes on the article! Larataguera (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bintang Delapan Group is live CT55555 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're fast! I'd like to look more into the nickel industry in Indonesia. Morowali Industrial Park could use some work to highlight EJ issues there. I've been thinking about nickel a lot lately (just did a little work on Fenix Nickel Project yesterday). It's really blowing up with all the EV batteries people are buying... Thanks for your work on this one! Larataguera (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
, Thanks, I'm glad you think so! It's nice to be appreciated. Larataguera (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Arun gas field
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason the template didn't work ...
In case you are curious, the reason the template didn't work on WikiProject Mining when you listed the new Kabwe mine article there is that the article had no talk page. It looks for the rating of the article on the talk page and, when there isn't a talk page, displays an error message. I fixed it up for you. Calistemon (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks! I had run out of time just then to figure it out, and I appreciate you tying up that loose end. And thanks also for so many new articles on nickel mines! Larataguera (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you in turn for fixing my mistake at Leinster Nickel Mine. Calistemon (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on a new article
hi, can you please give any feedback on >

Denial of atrocities against indigenous peoples

Thank you,

Magonz (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will look at it. I noticed that you had posted a request on Wikiproject Indigenous People of the Americas. I watch that page too, but thanks for reaching out! Larataguera (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Military history vs social/cultural history
Hello, and. I hope neither of you mind me pinging you here. Both of you in the past couple of days have made very similar comments that WP articles over-emphasise military history and neglect social/cultural history. (Jr8826 at Talk:British Empire and A.S. Brown at WikiProject Anarchism/Systemic bias report February 2023) I agree with that critique. Because you each made these comments using very similar language, I'm wondering if you've talked to each other about it? And also if either of you have seen this critique of WP in a reliable source? I have been studying Bias on Wikipedia, and if this has been discussed in an RS, I'd like to see it. Sorry to bother you, and thanks for your time! Larataguera (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the ping. It's no secret Wikipedia has systemic biases - both because it reflects Western scholarship (so neglects marginalised voices/communities that are not equally represented in Western scholarship, e.g. people from the Global South, women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people) and also because our editors are disproportionately white, male and from rich English speaking countries, so replicate their experiences and perspectives. I can't say with certainty there's a overemphasis on military history at the expense of social/cultural history on the English Wikipedia, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's a niche/honeypot interest that editors feel motivated to write about (like trains, for example) compared to less stimulating topics for the typical Western male Wikipedia editor, like women's history or non-English poetry. Wikiproject military history is a very active Wikiproject; military history is often tied with patriotism and nationalism (perhaps with the exception of peace studies), so it may be that both editors who specialise on this area, and the body of scholarship itself, is susceptible to a conservative tinge that neglects social history -- although this is by no means the case for every editor. There are equally many editors with a liberal bias, who may tend to congregate around their own topics of interest. Also, social history/critical studies have gained acceptance by the mainstream of Western academia slowly in the decades following the 1970s, and Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, has a tendency to reflect this distrust and scepticism of minority voices (you could even say this is by design, as it prevents conspiracy theorists and crackpots from being amplified). The long discussions, which I participated in, at Talk:Andrew Jackson over the predominance of respected (at the time) American historians from the 1970s who wrote highly of Jackson, and the absence of Native American narratives that see Jackson as responsible for the destruction of their peoples, comes to mind). WP:BIAS is a good essay on this subject. WikiProject Countering systemic bias exists to coordinate efforts to combat Wikipedia's systemic biases, although it's a mostly quiet project at the moment. I expect the Signpost will have published an article or two on this subject as well, if you search through its archives. Jr8825  •  Talk  01:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Lish91 (19:56, 22 May 2023)
how do i get started? --Lish91 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , welcome! There's lots of ways to get started. If there are topics you are familiar with, you should review articles about those topics and see if you can improve them! You can edit the pages by clicking the edit button on the top of the page. One easy task is to add links to other articles, or to remove links if there are too many. There are guidelines about what should be linked here. If you're a good writer, you can copyedit articles to make them clearer. There's a list of all articles needing copy editing at Category:All articles needing copy edit.These are just some suggestions for easy tasks to get started. What are your interests? Why did you start an account? Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything else! Larataguera (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You So Much Larataguera! 102.90.42.145 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Looks like you're editing while logged out, which exposes your IP address. Maybe not a big deal, but just letting you know. Larataguera (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Katrina masbin on Royan Institute (10:49, 25 May 2023)
I want to introduce the new department in Royan Institute but it is semi protect, how could I add this information in this page ? --Katrina masbin (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Katrina masbin (15:10, 25 May 2023)
Hello dear I want to edit some semi protect page and add some paragraph to them. What should I do? --Katrina masbin (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry for the slow reply! You can make an edit request on the talk page for the article you want to edit. I see that you've done this on the page Royan Institute, but since your request was unclear another editor wasn't able to complete that edit for you. Then, in this edit you did make a clearer request, (good job), but I think other editors were still confused because you made a second edit request at the same time, which was less clear. Sorry for the confusion, and I hope it hasn't been too frustrating. You can try pinging the editors who have responded to you and rephrasing your request so that it is clearer ("please change X to Y"). If I have more time later, I may also be able to look it over and make the change for you.The other thing worth noting is that your account will be autoconfirmed in a couple days (4 days after you created it), and then you can make these edits yourself. Hope this helps! Larataguera (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello dear . I really appreciate your help and thank you for your edit Katrina masbin (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello dear I want to add a series of new paragraphs to the semi protect page and I don't want to change the previous text, How should I announce my request to the editors so that they can help me? Katrina masbin (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , you can just say, "Insert the following paragraphs at X location."I looked at what you are proposing for Royan Institute, and I think editors might be reluctant to add this text, because your sources are from the Royan Institute website. This makes it a primary source. It would be better to find news or other third-party coverage. Are you by chance affiliated with the institute? If so, you should declare a conflict of interest on your user page. Larataguera (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank so much for your answer . No I am not affiliated with it. Just I know about this institute a lot. Katrina masbin (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Why no one answer me?
I wrote some thing for editing a page but no one answer me ? What should I do because I want to update the information of these institute. Katrina masbin (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * just relax. There's no hurry. Things don't move so fast on Wikipedia as they do on social media. Sometimes changes take weeks to make, and that's ok. Someone will get back to you eventually, and if not you'll be autoconfirmed very soon and you can make the edits yourself. Other editors will find it off-putting if you seem to be in a hurry or leave multiple messages about the same thing. Everyone here is a volunteer, and people are busy. Some people are in different timezones. Larataguera (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Katrina masbin (01:08, 28 May 2023)
Hi dear. I didn't edit any thing why did you block my ? I just correct my reference that your editors  told me. It's not fair that you block me without any edit just because of my new information that I told --Katrina masbin (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You haven't been blocked. Larataguera (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:El Chanate gold mine
I've started this one, based on your To Do list. Also created Environmental Justice Atlas. (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! that's great. I've been wanting to do a page for the EJAtlas for a long time. I really appreciate your help with QMM mine as well. I will add that one and El Chanate gold mine to the List of environmental conflicts. Larataguera (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Larataguera. Thank you for your work on Navajo water rights. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks to you for reviewing the article and for this thoughtful note! It's nice to hear from you and I hope you are well. Larataguera (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! All is very well, and I hope the same goes for you Larataguera. I just got back from a 5-week trip to New Mexico. They had a lot of rain earlier in June (an early monsoon season?), so it was beautiful and lots of wildflowers everywhere. Hopefully this recharged the aquifers. Re: your article, when I saw the Supreme Court ruling in the NYTimes about the water rights issue I considered creating an article, but you beat me to it, for which I'm very grateful. It's absolutely astonishing to me and deeply troubling that our court is so biased in this matter of this importance. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kabwe mine
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kabwe mine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kabwe mine
The article Kabwe mine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kabwe mine and Talk:Kabwe mine/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mister Lyte on User:Mister Lyte (11:12, 12 August 2023)
Gud day my lovely fans of mister lyte --Mister Lyte (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Secretfamilyrecipe (01:00, 13 August 2023)
Hi Larataguera,

I'm looking to make my first edit/addition to a Wikipedia article. Specifically, I'd like to add Joe Pass, notable jazz guitar player, to the "List of Ibanez players" article.

Joe played Ibanez guitars for many years and also became an Ibanez "Endorser" in 1980 with his own signature Ibanez model, the JP20. (https://www.guitarworld.com/news/guitar-aficionado-1983-ibanez-joe-pass-jp20)

With this in mind, I'd like to resolve his omission from the Ibanez list... but I'd like to do it correctly as there's an "Invisible Note" and I don't want to screw anything up.

Thanks a bunch! --Secretfamilyrecipe (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, from what I can see, the "invisible note" is just a comment warning you to include a source. (This is probably to prevent random people no one's ever heard of from being added to the list). In this case, you do have a source, and it describes Joe Pass as a "legend", so it seems reasonable to add this musician to the list. I'd say go ahead. Just be sure to include your citation. Thanks for reaching out! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Larataguera (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Larataguera, thanks for the explanation regarding the "invisible note" as well as for the reminder to include my source, I'll go ahead and add Joe. Thanks! Secretfamilyrecipe (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kabwe mine
The article Kabwe mine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kabwe mine for comments about the article, and Talk:Kabwe mine/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from FussyAboutGrammar (11:06, 18 August 2023)
Hello, why does Wikipedia so often let ungrammatical sentences pass? --FussyAboutGrammar (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , Wikipedia is entirely run by volunteers, and anyone can edit it, so content with poor grammar is added every day. You can correct poor grammar, and there are probably editors who do nothing but correct poor grammar all day long. But Wikipedia is huge, and unfortunately much of the writing is indeed very poor. Some of it is factually inaccurate. That's just the way it's made. Larataguera (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ...And welcome by the way! I hope you'll pitch in and help out with fixing grammar and anything else you see that needs attention. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I understand now why it is this way. FussyAboutGrammar (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Akonobi567 on Kevin Mitnick (16:02, 25 August 2023)
Hello hw will I start hacking --Akonobi567 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , I don't know. Better question for Kevin than me, but alas he is no longer with us! If you have questions about editing Wikipedia I may be able to help you, otherwise probably not.Larataguera (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Kabwe mine
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Deepwater1983 (15:41, 10 September 2023)
Hello. No questions for now. --Deepwater1983 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Lumbe Sam on Private police (06:59, 24 September 2023)
Hello, I'm Samuel kalule based in Pretoria south Africa can I be recruited as private police officer? Please. --Lumbe Sam (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Twizerimana gedeon (08:11, 9 October 2023)
how to fetch API post --Twizerimana gedeon (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi,, sorry for the slight delay. The API documentation is here and there are also more useful documents here. Hope that helps! Larataguera (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:CT55555 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I would like to nominate Larataguera to be Editor of the Week. Most of their contributions are found in the intersection between human rights and the environment. Larataguera edits to improve and expand content on environmental justice issues. They maintain a helpful page of needed articles. They created the local impacts template to improve how Infoboxes on mines are able to document environmental impacts. Larataguera participates at Good Article Reviews and Featured Article reviews, tending to push for greater coverage of historical issues of injustice. Larataguera's user page lists the many articles they have created, with the notable theme of resource extraction and its impacts on local populations and the environment. To the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers, Larataguera spends their time on a much needed set of issues that tend to be absent on Wikipedia and therefore deserves to be the editor of the week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   07:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * and, thanks for the recognition! That's very kind of you! I hope some other folks will pick up on these neglected issues, since I won't be able to do as much anymore! Larataguera (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Farewell
I hope that your semi-retirement is going well. I too have been taking a break from Wikipedia after my block left me feeling discouraged about the toxic culture here. I think that I am back now, and I am sorry to see that you have left. You definitely made Wikipedia a better place, and I hope that you take a relaxing wikibreak and return someday. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 00:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , I'm glad I happened to log in here to see your message! Thanks for your kind words. I do check in from time to time, and I'm happy to hear that you're interested in editing again. I do appreciate your work.I might come back after a while. I really don't know. I does seem a bit futile, but anything worth doing probably is! Anyway, if there's anything I can help you with, feel free to send me an email or leave a note here. I'll see it eventually. Larataguera (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)