Empanada Mixta

Welcome!

Hi Alejandro Basombrio! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Conservatism

Thank you for your excellent work on Conservatism!

Also—I wanted to remind you: if you add a person to a template, please remember to incorporate that template into the article of that person. This is the common rule for templates. And, in that way, the template gets the most exposure and attention.

Wikipedia and the world appreciate your contributions! Trakking (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Your recent editing history at Far-right politics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not insert content that does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy into articles, as you did to Afrikaners. Thank you. –Vipz (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What did I do? I just added the ethnic flag of the Afrikaners, as it appears registered in the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alliance (Norway), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand

I have added its own section then. It is important to clarify this since many "woke" people tend to support Castillo for being indigenous, when they do not know that he is against, for example, abortion and homosexuality. And this is not to mention the more than likely relationship between his party and ethnocacerism. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Socialism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Wikipedia is not about throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. It takes pure ignorance to insist, against widespread academic consensus, something is a variant of socialism or left-wing just because "it's in the name". This applies to all of the three: "national socialism", "national bolshevism", "national syndicalism". If you still do, I kindly request instead of revert warring in low-profile places to instead start a request for comment and see what consensus of the community says. –Vipz (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

POV edits

Your drastic edits at Ayacucho massacre display a very strong POV and require consensus. Please discuss such changes on the article talk page before making them.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Alejandro Basombrio: Here and here are more examples of the kind of POV editing which Ponyo and Vipz have asked you to stop. In case you missed it in my previous edit summary, there is a consensus that Francoism is a form of fascism. See this RfC. If you persist in making edits that go against that consensus, it will result in you being brought to a disciplinary noticeboard, which is frankly a waste of everyone's time. Please just stop and save us all the hassle. Generalrelative (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with Ayacucho. You add nothing with that comment on my profile Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My comment has to do with the subject heading, which is "POV edits" and I am delivering what I hope will be a helpful warning. If you'd prefer that I not attempt to discuss these matters with you on your talk page but instead pursue sanctions the next time you knowingly edit against consensus I can do that. It's your choice. Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

No reason to be so mean. Instead teach me how to start a consensus so I could debate if the info I correct is, as I said, correct Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not being mean. I am being direct. It's unlikely that you will be able to overturn a recent RfC consensus per WP:CCC. You may discuss the consensus on Francoism and fascism at Talk:Francisco Franco but you do need to accept that there is a prevailing consensus on the matter. As to how to build a new consensus, I'd suggest reading WP:CONSENSUS in its entirety, as well as WP:TALK. You are already engaging on Talk:Ayacucho massacre in the appropriate way. Even if we disagree, I am happy to collaborate with you and try to find common ground. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Asking you to self-revert

You have already been warned about edit warring, and yet you did it again here: [1] Three editors have expressed concerns that your edits appear to show a strong POV-bias that is inconsistent with our community norms. I ask you to revert your recent edits to Ayacucho massacre and work to build a consensus for any disputed changes you wish to make before re-adding them. This is the way Wikipedia works. Please respect our process. Generalrelative (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to help with an article?

I wanted to ask you if you want to participate in this talk. It's about Peru. Basically a user doesn't want to accept the fonts I'm giving him, and since we are only two people we need a third opinion. Armando AZ (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what's the talk about? So I could help Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It is about the precedents of the so-called "centralismo" in Peru, I argue that these date from the time of the Inca Empire (and even before) with systems like the mit'a and others, while WMrapids argues that it dates from the colonial era . The issue is in the type of sources that I used, which in my opinion are not bad, but that WMrapids argues are original research Armando AZ (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Far-left politics. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Special:Diff/1152054618 –Vipz (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Vipz (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Go on Country – Social Integration Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Comercio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republican Party (Chile, 2019). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bedivere (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history at Go on Country – Social Integration Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--WMrapids (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo and Generalrelative: !!? Doug Weller talk 20:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. The username shenanigans are a bridge too far. Generalrelative (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

why was the renaming approved? it is very close to that of WMrapids and is an obvious trolling. It should be reverted so that if Alejandro is his real name, they should have a reason to be ashamed for their troublesome behavior. Bedivere (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, we don't punish people here. Blocks and other sanctions are preventative. But the name change should be reversed to protect WMrapids from being confused with this blocked user. Generalrelative (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

For sure. Bedivere (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I already requested another name change, but administrators don't seem to care WNrapids (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Empanada Mixta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to offer my sincerest apologies for a series of actions on Wikipedia that violated the principles of maintaining a neutral point of view, neglecting the collaboration with other users for constructive contributions, using a similar username to another user, and engaging in edit warring. I deeply regret my behavior and the negative impact it may have had on the integrity of the platform and the Wikipedia community. First and foremost, I would like to express my genuine remorse for violating the WP:NPOV rule. I now understand the importance of presenting information without bias and respecting the diverse perspectives that contribute to the reliability and credibility of Wikipedia. My failure to uphold this principle undermines the collaborative nature of the platform and erodes the trust of its readers. I've already read the WP:IWAR essay and I learned that some of my edits have been similar to the ones represented here, which I promise not to commit again. Additionally, I deeply regret not utilizing the Talk page effectively to engage in constructive discussions and contribute to maintaining neutrality. I now recognize that it serves as a crucial avenue for open dialogue, fostering consensus and ensuring that edits align with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I acknowledge that my failure to actively participate in these discussions hindered the collaborative editing process. Furthermore, I apologize for using a username that was similar to the WMrapids. I now understand that this can cause confusion and potential conflicts within the community, even can be interpreted as a violation of WP:IMPERSONATOR. I genuinely regret any inconvenience or misunderstanding my choice of username may have caused and assure you that I have learned from this mistake. I also express my sincere regret for engaging in edit warring to forcefully promote my edits, even if done in good faith. I now realize that edit warring goes against the principles of collaboration, mutual respect, and building consensus that underpin Wikipedia's success. I apologize for any disruptions, tension, or inconvenience that may have resulted from my actions, and I promise to not violate again the WP:EW. During my absence from Wikipedia, I have reflected upon my behavior and the impact it had on the community. I have deepened my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, and the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view. I am committed to approaching editing with a renewed sense of responsibility, actively participating in discussions, seeking consensus, and contributing constructively to the platform. With humility, I request that you consider reinstating my user account on the condition that I strictly adhere to Wikipedia's principles moving forward. Furthermore, I kindly request the opportunity to change my username to one that is distinct from any existing users, to avoid any potential confusion or conflicts. If granted the chance to return, I pledge to make amends by actively working towards the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, engaging in respectful discussions, and contributing positively to the platform. I am committed to learning from my past mistakes, seeking guidance from experienced editors, and striving to regain the trust of the Wikipedia community. Once again, I extend my deepest apologies for my past actions and any harm or inconvenience they may have caused. I express my sincere gratitude for your time and consideration in reviewing my appeal and request for a username change. I genuinely hope for the opportunity to rectify my past behavior, contribute meaningfully, and positively contribute to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for your attention, and I eagerly await your decision regarding the reinstatement of my user account and the possibility of a username change.

Decline reason:

Now write an unblock request in your own words. We don't appreciate business letters written by ChatGPT or similar. It's easily recognizable, you know. Bishonen | tålk 07:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have renamed your user account from WNrapids to Empanada Mixta as you requested. The options were to rename you back to Alejandro Basombrio or to grant your request. In the hope that you will make a good and successful appeal on each of the projects where you have been blocked, and that you may prove to be a productive user, we will move forwards not backwards. The request was correctly declined but your impersonation of WMrapids needed to be removed. Courtesy pings to Bishonen, מקף, J ansari, Doug Weller. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Empanada Mixta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Approximately a month ago, I requested being unblocked from Wikipedia because making disrupting edits, violating the NPOV rule, using the Talk pages to establish consensus and changing my username to impersonate one of my partners. However, my request was rejected due to using ChatGPT to make my apologies, which I recognize it was not only lazy, but also wrong. Although it doesn't justify my actions, I requested the AI to make me an apology message since I was busy studying, and I expected getting unblocked for vacations. I recognize I did bad doing said action, and now I know the consequences of doing such an absurd "apology". Although wrong, I highly believe in what I put in the generated message. Now that I recognize how wrong was requesting ChatGPT to do my apology message, I would like to talk about the faults I did. The first one is the violation of the WP:NPOV, which I recognize I commited in regard of my edits in Peruvian political articles. While I've noticed some articles not wrote by me also break WP:NPOV, my form of "fix" them was wrong since I wanted to subvert them impossing an opposite POV, instead of searching for neutrality or consensus. The WP:IWAR essay was useful for me to understand what was I doing wrong in specific. ---- The other rule violation I did, related to the first one, was the WP:EW. Edit warring, directly related to the WP:3RR that got me blocked, was violated by me in an attemp to impose my edits in some pages. Now I recognize that, even if I'm wrong or correct, I must respect consensus made by the editors. Disruptive edits and imposition of my edits over others without consulting other users especialized in a theme was completely wrong. ---- Last but not least, another fault I commited was changing my username to one similar of one of the editors here. Now I'm aware that it violates the WP:IMPERSONATOR rule and can also be harmful to the user I emulated its name. I highly thank Cabayi for changing my username to the one I use now, evading using my real name and also replacing the one I copied from my colleague. ---- As said before and also in the generated messages, I promise not violating those rules again, since now I'm more aware of them and how they work. I promise that my actions will not be disruptive (or harmful) like they were before, and I hope I can contribute possitively again on the site. My deepest apologies

Decline reason:

 Confirmed block evasion via anonymous editing,  Highly likely sockpuppetry as RicardoMontano2323. Yamla (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.