Hello, Morrister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to California Genocide. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please discuss redirects and moves first. Thank you. Also, you dropped 40k of content into an article--where did that content come from? Drmies (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: see the posts below. Also see my messages to User:Diannaa and User:Maunus. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indian Holocaust. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Genocide of indigenous peoples, you may be blocked from editing. Waggie (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Congo Free State into Atrocities in the Congo Free State. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaqui genocide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While your topic is quite a valid one, and overall you're on-track, you have a couple format issues where you're way off.

• See the top of the page for the footnoting issue you need to clean up
• For categories, cats should be as specific as possible, so "Genocide" is way too broad a category, and unneeded since you already have "Genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas" or whatnot as a cat. Similarly it is incorrect to use "Indigenous tribes of Mexico" because the genocide is not a "tribe", the Yaqui are. So I cleaned up your categories for you, just keep that in mind for any future articles.

Overall, nice work and I'm really surprised we didn't already have an article on this important topic, so good on you for filling the gap! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Morrister,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether First genocide of the 20th century should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First genocide of the 20th century .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite User:Diannaa's warning you continued to copy material from other articles into Taíno genocide without attribution. You also failed to verify the sources and I almost immediately found one paragraph where the source didn't discuss the subject of the paragraph. This happens sometimes because text gets moved around and the source gets left behind or vice versa. Sometimes we find that the editor just made up the source (either literally somewhere on the web or just finding a likely title and using it for a source).

In any case I've changed the title to a redirect. I've nothing against such an article but you need to do it properly. You can rebuild it by hand, with each edit you copy from another of our articles attributing its source in its edit summary and of course once you've checked the source. That won't necessarily make a good article but at least it won't be a copyright violation. I wasted about 30 precious minutes figuring out what you did, as at first it appeared to be outright copyright from the web but that turned out to be a copy of other articles. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaqui genocide for instance, and perhaps most of your edits. Please stop until this can be sorted out. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Genocides in history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spanish

List of genocides by death toll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Crimean Tatar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" a section copied from another article" doesn't help in any way, and you continued to add unattributed material from other sources after the first edit. Do I really need to take you to WP:ANI? Doug Weller talk 11:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Drmies (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been advised and then warned plenty about what not to do, and how to do the things you want to do. I just reverted you on Genocides in history, where you copied content from at least two articles without attribution. You will not be allowed back in until you learn the policies and can convince us that you indeed a. understand them and b. will abide by them. Pinging Diannaa and Doug Weller. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the full details of the Spicer book you added with this edit otherwise it will be deleted as unsourced. We don't know what book you are referring to. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: I've reverted it. It's an example of the problems created by this editor on multiple articles, see the discussion above. I've even find instances where there is a source but the source doesn't back the text. Probably because at one point in the original article new text was added just before the citation, or some such incident. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you added this one: "TheYaquis (particularly children) were rattled off in Train cars to be sold as slaves in this process having 1/3 die simply in the process of deportation. The deaths were mostly caused by unfettered smallpox epidemics. Paco Ignacio Taibo II, documenta el brutal genocidio yaqui en nuestro país [1]"

The source says "The journey of death began in Sonora, I went down by boat to Sinaloa, from there I continued with a 32-day trek to bread and water to a train stop in Jalisco, half of which started. Later, they were put on trains and transported to Mexico City, arriving at night and when the cattle cars opened, a third of the people traveling there were dead;". It does say they were sold as slaves, it does say there were "untreated smallpox epidemics" (not unfettered), but it doesn't say that the people on the train were killed by smallpox. I don't know where 'rattled' came from.

An example of where you copied questionably sourced material without checking it is the bit about Haciendas.

"The Haciendas have been compared to those of the Stalinist Gulags.<ref>((cite book|last1=R. J. Rummel|title=STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE, Statistics Of Mexican Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources|url=http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP11.HTM))</ref>" This is copied without attribution from Haciendas, where it was added by 2001:558:600A:49:49CF:688B:54E1:A8BC (talk · contribs) - is that perhaps you before your account? In any case, this is a bit dubious. It's talking about death rates, and says "One possible approach is to draw on the death rates for comparable forced labor systems. For those forced into this system of slavery in Mexico, it seems as lethal, if not more so, than the Soviet gulag at its worse. However, if one applies the annual death rate range of the Soviet camps (10, 20, and 28 percent a year)4 to the number of Mexican forced laborers given here (lines 65 and 77) up through the first year of the Revolution (after which the system was collapsing), then the mid-total killed would be 12,540,000 for a total Mexican population of about 15,000,000 (line 128). Obviously, either the average conditions are much less deadly than for gulag or the estimated population of rural slave laborers is way too large. Probably this is a combination of both. " I'd argue that the author concluded that the comparison wasn't a terribly good one. You'll need better sources for that. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through a bit more. You take a very loose approach to sources, turning someone's remark into a factual statement, adding material not in the actual source, etc. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]