User talk:Firejuggler86

Welcome!

Hello, Firejuggler86, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Egg, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 23:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Electronic cigarette topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Minoan civilization, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vif12vf I know that was quite a while ago..but I am going through my past talk page messages and figured I would go ahead and address it. My apologies for that: I honestly didn't know I was edit warring until after several go-rounds, because the article had multiple sections and I was making the edits one section at a time, without noticing that my edits were being undone. Once I figured out what was going on, I stopped. My bad, though. Cheers Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:ERA: while the format should be as consistent as possible within the same article, one usually shouldn't be changing it, unless there's particular reason (sometimes there is a valid reason). If you think that there's a good reason to change it, please open a discussion about it on the article's talk page so a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached. Also see WP:BRD which is a good guideline about the policy against edit warring (bold-edit, revert, discuss cycle). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help, but what you did was archive an unclosed discussion. See WP:CLOSE. In short, you need to remove any pin or RFC templates (like the pin one that was at the top of the RFC to prevent archiving), and add the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} to the relevant locations. At that point, you can let the bots handle the archiving. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Universal Time, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc3s5h. I know that was a while ago, but I am going through my past talk page notices at this time: I honestly can't remember making that edit, and looking at the changes I made I think I must have either been half asleep, or my phone was blitzing out at the time. I think I was trying to write "observations of 5 distant quazars"; and if that was what it was, then I think the source that was already provided either says that itself, or that source cites a third source that says such. It is a minor detail, though, I don't know if it adds much value to the article. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TheImaCow. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Fad—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. TheImaCow (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheImaCow, the reason I removed that content was because: it was 3 unnecessarily wordy paragraphs, the substance of which could be said in one or two sentences; it was written in the style of an advertisement or promotional material; its appeared to be promoting Sarah so-and-so of such-and-such dot com, which was its only source; and, lastly, said website no longer existed, so that made it unsourced. I agree it might be helpful to explain the difference between "trend" and "fad", as the former is often used to describe the latter, but it only needs 2-3 sentences on the matter, not an essay.

I note I should have used an edit summary. Please also note that removing unsourced content that's been flagged as such for three years is not WP:VANDALISM. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Landfill, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Graham87 02:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louisiana Purchase, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian tribes and American Indians. 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) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assassin's Apprentice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bastard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flammagenitus cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Wilson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Singular they, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, I most certainly did give a valid reason for removing that Citation Needed flag for that content that was already cited to two sources, just as you also gave a valid reason when you reverted me for why you did not agree with the reason I gave. You certainly are welcome to disagree with me, but disagreeing with another editor's reasoning for making an edit - that was *clearly* in good faith - doesn't justify templating their talk page with a warning about practising (the removal of a CN flag??) in a sandbox. Thank you. (I also note that the incidents directly below did not involve this editor, and they had never edited that article before). Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Feng shui, you may be blocked from editing. Zazpot (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Feng shui. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Zazpot (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Firejuggler86. Thank you.--Zazpot (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Schistocyte. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Washington, D.C., but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — Schistocyte ^(talk) 05:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit _(blether) 14:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've noticed that you are often responding to comments on talk pages made several years ago. I just want to advise you that such contributions are rarely constructive. Many talk pages have archiving set up, but that isn't always the case; generally speaking, I'd suggest that if a discussion hasn't been added to for more than a month, it would be quite exceptional for anyone to add to it. In such cases, if you perceive that there is an ongoing problem with an article, it's almost always better to start a new thread. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 20:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at United States Declaration of Independence. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like your suggestion on definition in the RFC. I have commented if you could give another view that would be great. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious about your comment on this edit to Muscogee (Creek) Nation: "federally recognised tribes are not called 'Native American tribes'; 'Native American' is used in certain other contexts, but not in regard to tribes". What's the source for the statement? I see both phrases being used in official contexts by federal government agencies, including GSA, FWS, BIA, and IHS using the "Native American Tribes" phrase. The 2016 GPO Style Manual indicates that Tribe should usually capitalized in the phrase, but I don't see anything pointing to "American Indian" over "Native American." Carter (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without any source for the claim, I went ahead and reverted to "Native American" per the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's perfered term as seen on their governmental website. Carter (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your move of departments of transportation and start an RM for your desired change. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Monterey Jack, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner, you may be blocked from editing. Misogyny has no place on Wikipedia. Casspedia (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casspedia, I beg your pardon?? I am not sure where to begin..there's so many wrong things here..first of all, who are you accusing of misogyny? Caitlin Jenner, me, or both? Misogyny is subjective, and I will note here that the counter position in that RFC could also reasonably be argued to be "misogyny" (however both are unacceptable here, and amount to charging anyone taking the opposite side in a debate with a grave attack on their character. it has no place here). Anyway, to be clear, as I understood the controversy, it was over whether Jenner's statement was "bigoted" or "transphobic hate speech" or something of the like - not misogyny per se. No matter which convoluted way any of that can be construed, though, it's not okay to attack the character of a participant in a debate simply because you don't like the position they took. (P.S. - I also make note that that exact same inflammatory language was being used by many participants in that thread against Jenner herself, which, while not a "personal attack" in the WP meaning, is surely a BLP violation, among other things I won't get into).

Second, to call a response to an RFC that you happen to disagree with as "vandalism" is outrageously over the top. Unless I did something by accident, like accidentally deleting other editor(s) responses, or messed up the thread formatting/renderability...if that was the case, then I make all assurances that it was an unintentional error that I was unaware of, and am truly sorry for any trouble it caused. Otherwise, I strongly request that you strike that and any other parts of that warning that are inapplicable). thank you Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from website: https://books.openedition.org/ifea/4938)

Institut français d’études andines Institut français d’études andines Archivo Arquidiocesano de Trujillo Sección Idolatrías. (Años 1752-1... Archivo Arquidiocesano de Trujillo Sección Idolatrías. (Año 1771) MÁS ALLÁ DE LOS ENCANTOS | Laura Larco [Transcripción paleográfica] Archivo Arquidiocesano de Trujillo Sección Idolatrías. (Años 1768-1771) RECHERCHER DANS LE LIVRE

TABLE DES MATIÈRES CITERPARTAGER CITÉ PAR ORCID INFO AJOUTER À ORCID ALTMETRICS Voir les détails Archivo Arquidiocesano de Trujillo Sección Idolatrías. (Años 1768-1771) p. 67-87 TEXTE NOTES TEXTE INTÉGRAL · Autos seguidos contra un indio nombrado Marcos Marcelo, por el delito de su escandaloso ejercicio de supersticiones y hechicerías (Pueblo Nuevo). · Autos de supersticiones por Maria Bernarda Florian del pueblo de Guadalupe. Expediente n.° DD-1-3. 21 folios.

1[Al margen: Auto=]

2f.1r

3En la Docttrina de Pueblonuevo en Doze dias del mes de Octubre de mil settecientos sesenta y ocho años el Lizenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Villela Cura de dicha Doctrina Vicario Juez ecclesiastico de maleficios, é Idolatris en ella sus terminos, y Jurisdiccion: Dixo, que por quanto hoy dia de la fecha se le entró por las puertas un Indio nombrado Alverto Pizcolla, natural del Pueblo de Ferreñafe, y residente en los montes circunvecinos a este Pueblo (con el exercicio de Ganadero, y engordero de las manadas de ganado cabrio perttenecientes al Presbítero Don Raphael Estebez;) haciendo denuncia contra Marcos Marzelo assi mismo Indio que se exercita en el proprio oficio de engordero de cabras en el mismo monte; teniéndolo por bruxo, y echizero; para cuia prueva presentó dicho Alverto Denunciante en una alforxa varios trastos, como son multitud de emboltorios, en trapos, con varios atav��os de pelos de cabras, cabellos de hombres, y mugeres, y otros instrumentos, con que (dicho Denunciante dice,) que el dicho Marcos Marzelo se exercita en echizar, y curar a varias Perssonas: siendo precisso proceder en esta materia tan grave, con todo vigor, y justicia hasta averiguar la verdad, y aclarada, hazer pesquiza del Delinquente y demas personas que se huviesen mes-ciado en este asunto. Por tanto, dijo su merced dicho Señor Juez, que se le notifique a dicho Alverto Pizcolla comparesca en este tribunal a jurar y declarar sobre los Puntos y preguntas que se le hicieren sobre la materia de la denuncia que ha hecho: Y entre tanto, todos los Instrumentos, y erramientas, que dicho Alverto ha presentado se guarden en parte segura ha / / f.1v / / su tiempo. Assi lo proveio, mandó, y firmo dicho Señor Juez por ante mí de que doy fee=

4Miguel Anttonio de Villela [firma]

5Ante mí=

6Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

7Nottario Nombrado

8En dicho dia mes y año Yo el Notario hize saver el auto antecedente a Alverto Pizcolla en su persona de que doy y fee

9Matos [firma]

10En la Doctrina de Pueblo Nuevo en treze Dias del Mes de Octubre de mil setesientos sesenta y ocho años. En virtud de la notificacion antecedente ante el Señor Vicario y Juez de Idolatrías, comparecio Alberto Pizcolla, que és el mismo Indio que denunció: A quien por ante mí se le recivió ese Juramento que hizo por Dios Nuestro Señor, y una señal de Cruz, so cargo del qual prometió decir verdad en lo que supiere y le fuere preguntado, y siendolo al tenor de la subtancia de su denuncia, repondió lo siguiente

11Preguntado que motivo tenia para denunciar conttra Marcos Marzelo su Compañero, y si havia sido / / f.2r / / movido de algun odio particular, ó enemistad. Dijo que no, y responde

12Preguntado que fundamentos tuvo para venir en conocimiento de que el dicho Marcos Marzelo era hechizero? dixo, lo primero que con el motivo de vivir en compañia de dicho Marcos Marzelo, ha visto el denunciante varios movimientos, y curaciones á varias Indias, que lo han ido á buscar al monte para este efecto, y que en la maniobra ha husado de la erramienta que tiene presentada, y responde Preguntado si conosia á las Indias por sus nombres respondió que no. Y que la dicha denuncia la havia echo movido de las obligaciones de christiano, y que lo que lleva dicho y declarado és la verdad so cargo de el Juramento que tiene fecho en que se afirmó y ratificó siéndole leida su declaracion dixo ser de mas de quarenta años, y que no savia firmar, y lo firmó el Señor Juez por ante mí de que doy fe=

13Miguel Antonio de Villela [firma]

14Ante mí

15Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

16Nottario

17Pueblonuevo, y octubre 19 de 1768.

18Vista la antecedente denuncia que según declaración / / f.2v / / jurada ha echo el denunciante, y en atencion á que por ella se hallan comprobadas otras denuncias secretas que se han echo en este Tribunal contra el dicho Marcos Marzelo: se le prevendrá al Alcalde de este Pueblo traiga preza la persona de dicho Marcos, y con buena guardia y custodia la ponga en la Carzel de este Pueblo y fecho todo se darán las providencias que combengan=

19Ante mí=

20Villela= [firma]

21Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

22Nottario

23En dicho Dia Mes y Año Yo el Notario nombrado passé a la Casa de el Alcalde de este Pueblo á quien instruy en el Decreto antecedente quien lo oyó y entendió de que doy fee=

24Matos [firma]

25[Al margen: Confesión] En la Doctrina de Pueblo nuevo en Veinte y quatro Dias del Mes de Octubre de Mil Setesientos sesenta y ocho años. El Lizenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Villela Cura y Vicario Juez Ecclesiástico y de Idolatrías en ella sus terminos y Jurisdicción / / f.3r / / Haviendo hecho comparezer á Marcos Marzelo Indio que está preso en la Carzel de este Pueblo para efecto de tomarle su confesion: puesto en presensia de el Juez; le tomó su Juramento que hi(so) por Dios Nuestro Señor y una señal de Cruz, so cargo de el qual prometió decir verdad en lo que supiere, y le fuere preguntado; y siendolo, respondió á todas las preguntas lo siguiente

26Primeramente preguntado de donde era natural y quien lo baptisó, respondió, que era natural de el Pueblo de Ferreñafe, y que lo Baptisó el Lizenciado Don Marcos Vitores de Velasco Cura que fue de dicha Doctrina en cuyo tiempo nació

27Preguntado, si savia la Doctrina christiana, y todos los Articulos de la feé necesarios para la salvasion: dijo, que se le havia olvidado la Doctrina Christiana (y con efecto examinado en ella, halló el Juez que no la savia:) porque ha mucho tiempo que no la reza

28Preguntado en que exercicio ha vivido, y qual ha sido su oficio dixo que ha tiempo de veinte años que se exercita en ser ganadero y engordero / / f.3v / / de Manadas en diversas partes y montes.

29Preguntado quanto tiempo ha, que no se confiesa, y si ha guardado el presepto de Missa y Doctrina a que está obligado; dixo, que quando estaba en el despoblado se pasaban los tres, y quatro meses sin oir missa ni Doctrina y que quando vino á estos montes la oia cada quinze dias, y que solo este año que passó se ha dejado de Confezar

30Preguntado, si save la causa de su prision, dixo que ya tenia noticia aunque no con mucha indibidualidad

31Repreguntado como decia que no savia con indibidualidad la causa de su prision, quando por varias denuncias que se han echo en este Tribunal, y ultimamente por una declaracion jurada que un Indio compañero suyo de el mismo exercisio de ganadero, ha hecho traiendo ante el Señor Juez toda la erramienta: se ha justificado que ha vivido engañado de el Demonio, y constituido en escandalosas supresticiones, hechiserias, y curaciones diabolicas. Dixo que es cierto, que ha vivido como se dice anegado / / f.4r / / en superticiones, en curaciones, superticiosas y engañando a varias personas que venian á pedir fortuna, y responde

32Preguntado si havia hecho pacto con el Demonio, y si este se le havia aparecido, y en que figura ó representacion? dixo que no ha es hecho pacto berbal con el, ni que se le havia aparecido en figura alguna

33Preguntado como y de que manera se manejaba en las curaciones que hacia, que movimientos, y que seremonias executaba en ellas, ó si en el acto de la Curasion imbocaba berbalmente ó interiormente en su Corazon al Demonio? Dixo que quando alguna persona enferma que aprehendia estar maleficiada solicitaba al Declarante para que la curaze, lo que hacia el Declarante; era; primeramente cosinar una yerba, que siempre tiene el declarante; la qual se llama gigantes; la qual regularmente se halla en las faldas de los Cerros, y que el caldo de esta yerba bien cosida lo bebía el declarante con lo qual el declarante venia en pleno conosi-miento y patentemente via con los ojos el maleficio de el enfermo y si tenia algún, sapo, ó culebra, ó otro animal en la barriga, y que con este conocimiento / / f.4v / / cierto le daba la notica al enfermo del estado en que se hallaba y como la enfermedad que tenia era maleficio; y también conosia el hechizero que havia hecho el daño; y que cersiorado el enfermo de el estado de su enfermedad, le suplicaba al declarante que lo curase; y entonzes, para proseguir la curasion lo que hacia, era, darle a beber al enfermo de la misma yerba; luego que la bebia se emborrachaba el enfermo, y caia rendido, y lo cobijaba y que si el enfermo estaba en estado de curasion, sanaba, y que sino moría. Y para venir en conocimiento de si era capós de sanar ó nó el enfermo lo que hacia era, luego que arropaba bien al enfermo ebrio, entretanto, con una sonaja de calabazo y cascabel annexo á ella, y juntamente silbando llamaba su viento, que tenia, el qual venia de un zerro nombrado cuculi, en forma y figura de un remolino, y que este venia y cobijaba al enfermo, y que con todo esto sanaba, y que quando el viento no venia, ni se llegaba al enfermo; era la señal fija de que el maleficiado estaba / / f.5r / / incapás de curasion, y en estado de morir, y que en tal caso, lo desahusiaba al enfermo, por que sin remedio moria y lo dexaba de la mano.

34Preguntado si todos los instrumentos que se le havian presentado al Señor Juez por el denunciante eran suyos? dixo (despues de haverlos visto y reconocido el declarante) que todos eran suyos: y que los quatro trozos de Yerba llamada gigantes; era para curar maleficios; como ya tenia dicho arriba: Que la ollita y cantarito era para cosinar la dicha Yerba; que un potito que estaba en la erramienta era para dar la bebida; que la sonaja de potito, y cascabel, era para llamar á su biento: Que un sirculo de cacho en el que estan esculpidos algunos pedasos de concha de perla; y en el medio esculpido una figura de gato; se lo compro a un cerrano nombrado Ballejos de las montañas; para el efecto de libertarse de echisos: que el tabaco que estaba en la herramienta era para darle al enfermo para que la yerba hiziese operasion; que todos estos instrumentos de su herramienta le servian para los fines que lleva expresados, y responde

35f.5v

36Preguntado que significan ó para que fines mantenia varias piedras de diferentes colores, tamaños, y figuras entre de la erramienta? dijo que las doze de ellas, le servian para limpiar á los enfermos, despues de la curasion; las quales piedras las havia sacado de el serro llamado cuculi en donde vivia su viento: Que las otras piedras restantes pequeñitas redondas en forma de balas le ser-vian para recistir, y oponerse al enemigo de el mismo arte, quando le tirase al corazon; Que la otra que tiene figura de tortuguita le servia para curar á los carates, y dexarlos limpios; que la otra que tiene figura de condor le servia para que este con sus alas le traxese los bientos y le limpiase el ganado. Que la otra larguita en figura de una cabeza le servia para que el viento de el declarante recistiese al viento de el echizero contrario en la curasion de algun enfermo, y responde

37Preguntado que significan y para que fines tenia una multitud de emboltorios en que havia pelos de cabra, de chibatillos, cabellos de muger y de hombre? Dixo que estos pelo / / f.6r / / de cabras, los tenia guardados, para tener la manada como obedediente y Ilebarla á donde queria, sin el trabajo de arrearla, de manera que de este modo conseguia Ilebarla á beber con un silbo; ó grito que le daba, y responde.

38Preguntado para que fin tenia un trapito con cabello ádentro amarrado y un pedazo de cambray1 labrado? dixo, que se los havian entregado dos mestizas de el Pueblo de San Pedro, que vinieron en solicitud de el declarante para que este hiziese que sus maridos que las tenian botadas las recogiesen, que de el nombre de estas mestisas no save; pero si, de una samba que reside en San Pedro nombrada Luisa, quien vino en compañia de las dos mestizas, y suplicó al declarante que las atendiese, y responde Preguntado para que fin tenia un poco de tierra amarrada en un trapo? dixo que assi como está se lo entrego la samba nombrada Luisa, que vino en compañia de las dos mestisas, la qual tierra dixo dicha samba que le havia cogido de el rastro de un ladron que havia entrado á robarle una gallina, y que assimismo le entregó una de essas mestizas, una media de Ylo, para que curase a su marido que andaba rengo, y responde f.6v

39Preguntado, que para que fin tenia una manga de camisa de mu-ger? dixo, que esta manga se la dio una India de Guadalupe llamada Ignacia muger de Tiburcio, para que la curase el declarante de la enfermedad que tenia en un brazo, y responde

40Preguntado quanto tiempo se ha mantenido en este exercicio; si en los pueblos por donde ha transitado ha conosido algunas hechiseras ó curanderas supertisiosas, ó si le han solicitado algunas mugeres para pedirle fortuna? Dixo que ha que se mantiene en este engaño de el Demonio ocho años segun su cuenta cabal: Que se acuerda y save que en el pueblo de Guadalupe son del mismo oficio Juan Catacaos. Indio; Pedro chusa Indio, y Bernarda su muger; otra muger, alias la Tantaboca: otra nombrada la Casquina y Joseph tamborilero de Chepen=

41Assi mismo dixo el declarante que tres mugeres recidentes en Guadalupe le fueron á pedir fortuna para que fuesen queridas y estimadas de los hombres, y son las siguientes= Una serrana nombrada Rosa muger de un fulano Mego que esta en la carrera de Lima= Otra / / f.7r / / nombrada Monica muger de Pablo el carpintero= Otra nombrada Maria hija de la Guerequeque2 = Y assi mismo le fue á pedir fortuna al declarante un serrano nombrado Joseph que tiene mucha entrada en casa de la viuda de el Nópo; para que lo quiciese la hija de el dicho Nópo, y responde Con lo qual se concluyó esta confesion por no tener al presente el declarante mas que decir y que todo lo que lleva dicho y declarado es la verdad so cargo de el Juramento que fecho tiene en que se afirmó y ratificó siendole leida esta su declaracion y no saviendo firmar el declarante lo hizo el Señor Juez por ante mí de que doy feé=

42Miguel Antonio de Villela [firma]

43Ante mí

44Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

45Notario

46f.7v En blanco.

47f.8r

48Truxillo 9// de Noviembre de 1768//

49Ilustrisimo Señor

50Por recibida con las diligencias, que la acompañan Vista al Promotor Fiscal=

51[Al margen: «Ante mí / Antonio del Solar / Notario Publico»]

52Mi Señor Remitto con Proprio las diligencias que esttoy corriendo conttra un Indio denunciado de Echizero. Por la confecion, que le tomé reconocerá Vuestra Señoría Ilustrísima, que resulttan varias Personas mixtas del Hazientto de Guadalupe, Que dista de esta Docttrina mia dos leguas escasas. Y aunque en virtud de las facultades que tengo pudiera aprehenderlas; pero siendo las mas mixtas, y estando en ageno territorio, me he conttenido, hasta dar quenta a Vuestra Señoría Ilustrísima.

53En Dicho Guadalupe actualmente no hay Juez de Idolattrias a quien ocurrir: sobre que Vuestra Señoría Ilustrísima me ordenará quanto sea servido.

54Nuestro Señor me guarde a Vuestra

55Señoría Ilustrísima muchos años. Pueblonuevo y octubre 29 de 1768. Ilustrísimo Señor

56Está a los Piez de Vuestra Señoría Ilustrísima su mas reconocido subditto y capellan

57Miguel Anttonio de Villelas [firma]

58Ilustrisimo Señor Doctor Don Francisco Xavier de Luna Victoria

59mi Señor

60f.8v En blanco.

61f.9 En blanco.

62f.10r

63Ilustrísimo Señor

64El Promotor Fiscal General de este Obispado en vista de las diligencias que há seguido el Licenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Vilela, Cura, y Vicario de Pueblo nuevo, en consequencia de la denuncia hecha contra un Indio nombrado Marcos Marselo, del delito de hechisero, dice= que por su misma confesion resulta probado todo lo que de el se há denunciado, por que de plano confiessa que há ocho años, que se mantiene en este diavolico exersicio, curando maleficios con supersticiones, y vanas observancias: hansele hallado varios instrumentos, emboltorios, y herramientas para manejo del arte; que ninguno de ellos tienen conexion alguna con los fines, á que se usaban: Sobre esto, y lo demas, que ay por considerar en la materia expondrá a su tiempo: por ahora corresponde el que se trayga a esta Ciudad á buen seguro con la guarda, y custodia necessaria, como lo pide el Fiscal; y juntamente, que el dicho Vicario, Jues de maleficios, é Ydolatrias, proceda a la captura y pesquissa de todos aquellos, que há manifestado dicho Vicario y están implicados en los mismos delitos de hechiseros, y curanderos de maleficios con supersticiones diavolicas, y fecho, que los remita igualmente bien asegurados, acompañando con sus personas las diligencias, que actuare sobre el assumpto, para que en vista de ellas se provea lo que fuere conveniente en que determinará Vuestra Señoría Ilustrísima lo que fuere servido. Truxillo y Noviembre 12// de 1768//

65Doctor Juan Phelipe Vespasiano [firma]

66f.10v

67truxillo y Noviembre 13 1768, Autos=

68Ante mí

69Ortega [firma]

70En la ciudad de Truxillo de el Peru en tres días del mes de Diziembre de mil Setecientos sesenta y ocho años el Señor Licenziado Don Pedro de orbegoso Abogado de la Real Audiencia de los reyes Canonigo desta Santa Iglesia Cathedral Provisor y Vicario general deste obispado etc= Haviendo visto estos autos seguidos contra un Yndio nombrado Marcos Marzelo por el delito de su escandaloso exersisio en diavolicas superstisiones y hechizerias, con lo demas dedusido, y que sobre todo ha pedido el Promotor fiscal Defensor General de Legados y obras pias deste Obispado en su antecedente respuesta a la vista que se le dio. Pido Su Señoría= que en atension á hallarse gravemente accidentado de la Salud el Señor Jues de Idolatrías y Maleficios a quien toca el conosimiento desta causa, y a fin de que no queden impugnes los delitos de dicho Yndio y demas personas que de dicha / / f.11r / / confesión de f(ojas) 2 buelta resultan culpadas. Devia mandar, y mandó se debuelvan dichos autos al cura y vicario de Pueblo nuevo para que remita a esta ciudad a buen recaudo y con la guarda y custodia conveniente al referido Yndio Marcos Marzelo, y proceda a practicar las demas diligencias que pide dicho Promotor fiscal contra todos los que se hallan incursos en los mismos delitos de hechiseros y curanderos de maleficios con Diavolicas superstisiones, remitiendolos igualmente bien asegurados con las expresadas diligensias, que para ello su anexo y conserniente le delegava y delegó Su Señoría la facultad y comission, que de derecho se requiere y es necessaria, en virtud deste, que sirbe de bastante despacho, y lo firmó=

71Don Pedro de Orbegoso [firma]

72Ante mí

73Andres Joseph de Ortega [firma]

74Notario maior y de Govierno

75[Al margen: Auto]

76En la Doctrina de Pueblo nuevo en dose dias / / f.11v/ / del mes de septiembre de mil settecientos secenta y nueve años el Licenciado Don Miguel Anttonio de Villela Cura y Vicario Jues ecclesiástico en ella; haviendo recivido estos autos de regresso del Jusgado de truxillo en el que se han demorado por la multitud de expedientes que ocurren en el de todo el obispado: Dijo, que para la aprehencion de las Personas que en su confecion mescla Marcos Marzelo, se libre exortto3 al Señor Corregidor de esta Provincia implorando su auxilio, para que sean aprehendidas y puestas en la carsel de Guadalupe, sacando el Notario de esta Causa un testimonio de estas Diligencias y que en dicho cuarto lo ponga el Notario publico de la Provincia en manos del Señor Corregidor y que se inteligencie de la Justificacion con que se implora su auxilio: y fecho todo y aprehendidas las Personas de las que se denuncian conplices, se pasará a correr las demas diligencias assi lo proveio, mandó y firmo por ante mí de que doy fee=

77Miguel Anttonio de Villelas=[firma]

78Ante mí=

79Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

80Notario Ecclesiástico

81Librose el exortto, el que se despachó con el testimonio de estos autos a manos del Señor Correxidor doy fe=

82Matos [firma]

83f.l2r

84En la Doctrina de Pueblo nuevo en Veinte Dias del mes de Junio de mil Settecientos Setenta y un año el Licenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Villela cura y Vicario de ella y Juez de Idolatrías. Haviendo visto estos autos oyo que en atencion a haver estado suspenso muchos meses el cursso de ellos por la huyda que hizo Marcos Marzelo respecto de haver este parecido, y vueltose aprender su Persona, se remita a la Ciudad de truxillo con la Persona de Bernarda Florian una de las denunciadas por dicho Marcos Marselo; que es la que por otro nombre llaman la Guerequeque; y que a estos autos se agreguen las Diligencias que se han corrido sobre la dicha Bernarda para que todo vaya en un cuerpo. Y por lo que toca a los demas reos mandados aprehender y remitir a truxillo por el Señor Provisor difunto Doctor Don Pedro de Orbegozo; se reserva para mejor ocasion su aprehension respecto de estar dispersos en varias partes, y necesitarse de auxilio del Jues Provisor, y de mucha cautela para evitar la fuga que puedan hacer, y según y como se fueren aprehendiendo se irán remitiendo a la Ciudad de truxillo assi lo proveyó y firmó de que doy fee=

85Miguel Antonio de Villelas [firma]

86Ante mí

87Juan Baptista Matos [firma]

88Notario Nombrado

89f.12v En blanco.

90f.13 En blanco.

91f.14r

92En la Doctrina de Pueblonuevo de la Provincia de Saña en cinco dias del mes de Abril de mil Settecientos setenta y un años el señor Lizenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Villela cura y Vicario Juez ecclesiastico en ella sus Términos y Jurisdicción y assi mismo Juez de Idolatrías, maleficios y supersticiones en los pueblos de San Pedro, Guadalupe, y Chepén: dijo que por quanto ya tiene sumamente cansados los hoidos de oir tan repettidas denuncias que se han hecho en este tribunal contra una mestiza nombrada Bernarda Florian, asegurando ser insigne Echizera unos denunciantes, y otros ser mui supersticiosa, denuncias que juntas con su mala fama, y escandalosa vida, la hacen muy sospechosa; y siendo necesario proceder contra ella por todos los terminos del Derecho. Por tanto debía mandar y mando Su merced que sobre todo se reciva Sumaria Informacion Secreta, y fecha se darán las Providencias que convengan en Justicia: assi lo proveió y firmó por ante mí de que doy fee.

93Miguel Antonio de Villelas [firma]

94Ante mí

95Juan Bautista de Matos [firma]

96Notario Ecclesiástico

97[Al margen: «Confesión»]

98En la Doctrina de Pueblo nuevo en ocho dias del mes de Abril de mil Setesientos Setenta y un años el Señor Lizenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Vilela Cura Vicario Juez Ecclesiástico en ella y Juez de Ydolatrias, Maleficios y Supersticiones de los Pueblos de San Pedro, Guadalupe y Chepén. En virtud del Auto antecedente hizo compareser en su presencia á Maria del Carmen Florian hija de Bernarda Florian denunciada: á quien por ante mí el presente Notario se le recivió su Juramento que lo hizo por Dios Nuestro Señor / / f.l4v / / y una señal de Cruz so cargo del qual prometió decir verdad en lo que supiere y le fuere preguntado, y siendolo sobre la vida superticiosa de dicha Bernarda su Madre dixo que publicamente ha oydo decir, que es Superticiosa, y hechizera, que su dicha Madre ha procurado siempre llevarla á los montes á donde los Yndios ganaderos con quienes ha tenido siempre mucha correspondencia vicitandolos con frequencia y regularmente de noche por lo que ha concluido la declarante que su dicha Madre deve de tener alguna mescla en semejantes vicios. Que lo que save és que estando la declarante padeciendo con unas manchas ó llagas en la cara la llevó su dicha Madre una noche con violencia al monte á una manada en que estaba un Yndio nombrado Marcos Marzelo (alias el Pabito) con quien habló su dicha Madre para que curase a la declarante y con efecto, haviendola reconocido el Yndio la curó dandole ha beber sierta Yerba que en el acto cosinó, y pasandole por la Cara unas Piedras lizas y frias, juntando á esta curacion sus supersticiones como hera llamar sus vientos y declararle á la declarante que estaba maleficiada; con la qual curacion quedó buena y sana. Y que viendo que su Madre queria reducirla á que continuase con ella las ydas á los montes, y vicitas á los Ganaderos se resistió la declarante y no quiso acompañar á su Madre á quien le afeaba semexantes bicios, y vida tan desastrada diciendole que que podiá darle el Demonio que assi se dexaba engañar: por lo que su Madre / / f.15r / / le cogió notable aborrecimiento de manera que se vió presisada á salirse de su casa y vivir separadamente y que no save otra cosa ni tiene mas que declarar, y que lo que lleva dicho y declarado es la verdad so cargo del Juramento que fecho tiene en que se afirmó, y ratificó siendole ley da esta su declaración no lo firmó por no saver, y lo hizo el Señor Juez por ante mí de que doy feé=

99Miguel Antonio de Villela [firma]

100Ante mí

101Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

102Nottario Ecclesiástico

103Guadalupe y Abril Dies de 1771

104Vista esta declaración y en atención á que la dicha Bernarda Florian está denunciada y prosesada en la causa del Yndio Marcos Marzelo, y mandada prender, y remitir a la Ciudad de truxillo se pase a la execusion de su prision y embargo de todos sus bienes que se pondran por imbentario á continuación de este Decreto, y fecho todo se trayga á la vista á dicha Bernarda para tomarle su confesion y dar las providencias que combengan Miguel Antonio de Villelas [firma]

105Proveyó lo de suso decretado el Señor Lizenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Vilela Cura y Vicario de la Doctrina de Pueblo nuevo Jues de Ydolatrias en ella y en los Pueblos de Guadalupe, San Pedro, y Chepen en dicho dia Mes y Año, ariba / / f.l5v / / citados de todo lo que doy feé=

106Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

107Nottario Ecclesiástico

108Yo el Notario certifico que en virtud del Decreto antecedente passó el Alcalde de este Pueblo y puso presa á Bernarda Florian en la Carzel baxo de todo seguro y para que conste lo pongo por diligencia

109Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

110Nottario Ecclesiástico

111Inventario delos Bienes que se le embargaron a Bernarda Florian= Primeramente un faldellin de Bayeta de Castilla verde tratable con su forro de dandilla y cintas carmines,

112Itt. (item) Una mantilla Murga de Bayeta de Castilla

113Itt. Una Saya de Pico de Oro, algo tratable

114Itt. Otra de lo mismo con su franja de Plata

115Itt. una faxa con que estan amarradas otras Piezas

116Itt. Una casita vieja de caña con su salita y dos quartitos el uno sin Puerta y el otro con ella sin llaves ni chapas

117Y aunque se embargó una Atarraya vieja de Pescar se le dio al Notario por sus costas, y se contentó con ella.

118Con lo qual se concluio este Inventario por no / / f.lór / / haversele hallado otros Bienes que embargarle a dicha Bernarda Florian quien dijo no tener mas. Y lo firmó el Señor Jues por ante mí de que doy fee=

119Miguel Antonio de Villela [firma]

120Ante mí=

121Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

122Notario Ecclesiástico

123En la Doctrina de Pueblo nueve en Doze dias del mes de Mayo de mil Setesientos Setenta y un años el Señor Lizenciado Don Miguel Antonio de Vilela Cura y Vicario de la Doctrina de Pueblo nuevo Jues de Ydolatrias en ella y en los Pueblos de Guadalupe, Chepen, y San Pedro hizo compareser á Bernarda Florian para efecto de tomarle su confesion: á quien por ante mí el presente Notario se le recivio su Juramento que lo hizo por Dios Nuestro Señor y una señal de Cruz so cargo del qual prometió decir verdad en lo que supiere y le fuere preguntado, y siendolo al tenor de barias preguntas respondió lo siguiente Primeramente preguntada si save la causa por que estaba presa respondió que no saviá

124Preguntada como decia que no save la causa de su prision quando por denuncia que hizo Marcos Marzelo Yndio Supersticioso y embustero se save / / f.16v / / que ella tambien es del mismo arte? dixo que el Yndio Marcos Marzelo es un perro falzario que siendo el supersticioso y embustero le ha levantado ese testimonio, y que ella no save de superticion, ni havia consentido en ella, y responde

125Preguntada como decia que no savia de supersticion, ni que havia consentido en ella, quando su misma hija Maria del Carmen estando enferma de la cara la llevó al monte á la posada del Yndio Marcos Marzelo para que este la curase con curaciones supersticiosas, llenas de Vicios abominables? respondió que lo que su hija havia declarado era cierto, y que viendola enferma, y deseosa de sanarla concurrió y solicitó essa curacion en cuyo delito concurrió como ignorante, y que de ello estaba arrepentida, y pedia á Dios misericordia y responde

126Preguntada como desia que no savia de supersticiones quando en todo Guadalupe tiene fama de ser insigne superticiosa embustera y aun no faltan quienes digan que es bruja? dixo que la fama sin duda le havia nasido de algunos disparates que havia echo superticiosos el primero con una hija de Basilio Grados, cuyo nombre no se acuerda, la qual deseosa de casarse con sierto sastre de Guadalupe no pudiéndolo / / f.l7r / / conseguir passó a la casa de la declarante y con lagrimas le pidió que tenia que hablar con ella, y entonses la declarante le dixo que dixese lo que se lo ofresia, y la dicha hija de Grados le contó a la declarante el grande deseo en que estaba de casarse, y que para conseguirlo se valia de ella para que le diese alguna bebida ó remedio con que conseguirlo, y que entonses la declarante le respondió que ella no savia de esso, pero que le buscaria quien lo hiziese y que bolbiese despues, y al despedirse le dio la solicitante á la declarante dos pesos en plata, para que con empeño hiziese la negociasion, y que haviendolos recivido le mandó que bolbiese, y que no le diera cuydado.

127Al otro dia bolbió la solicitante ha ver el estado del negocio, y con efecto la declarante por darle gusto, y quedarse con los dos pesos lo que hizo fue coger un jarro, llenarlo de Agua, echarle un terron de Asucar, y se lo dio á beber á la solicitante diciendole que alli hiva el negocio que pretendia, y que ya no le diese cuydado de conseguir el marido que deseaba: pero que al cabo de dias viendo la solicitante que no havia sentido efecto la bebida, vino muy enojada a recombenir á la declarante por el engaño, pidiendole que le debolviese sus dos pesos y que todo vino á parar en riña.

128Lo segundo que le passó fue con otra hija de / / f.17v / / Joseph Nuspar la qual solicitó en su casa á la declarante para que esta le consiguiese el que su amante la pusiese en parte oculta donde la Justicia que la perseguia no la hallase, y que pagandole á la declarante ocho reales se excusó esta considerando que le pasaria lo mismo que con la primera y responde

129Preguntada si savia ó ha oido decir que algunas personas estén mescladas en los bicios de superticion, ó maleficios, dixo que no savia, que lo que podia declarar era que con el motivo de la mala amistad que ha tenido la declarante con Joseph Sabaleta, este se la llevó á los montes de San Pedro donde vivia Juan Catacaos engordando una manada y que en solicitud de este Yndio (le hoia decir á Sabaleta) hivan varias personas de Guadalupe y San Pedro con sus regalos y Aguardientes, y que con el Yndio se metian al monte, que no se acuerda el nombre de las personas á esepcion de una de Guadalupe que es la Justa pastora quien tambien hiva en solicitud de dicho Indio, y responde

130Con lo qual se concluyó esta Confesión en la que se afirmó y ratificó siendole leyda toda la letra de ella, dixo ser la verdad lo que tiene declarado bajo del Juramento fecho en que se afirmó, y no firmó por no saver escrivir, y lo hizo el Señor Juez de que doy fee=

131Miguel Antonio de Villela [firma]

132Ante mí

133Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

134Notario Ecclesiástico

135f.l8r

136la Doctrina de Pueblonuevo en Veinte dias del mes de Junio de mil Settecientos y setenta y un años el Señor Jues de Ydolatrías. Haviendo visto este Cuerpo de Autos Dixo que respecto de que por lo tocante a Marcos Marzelo y Bernarda Florian (alias la Huerequeque) que no havia mas que actuar por aora se remitan al Señor Jues General de Ydo latrías con las Personas de los suso dichos, y por lo respectivo de los demas mandados aprehender y denunciados por dicho Marcos le reserva para mejor tiempo por las rasones expuestas en el auto que esta a fojas 12 que está de estos autos, y asi lo proveió y firmó=

137Miguel Antonio de Villela [firma]

138Ante mí=

139Juan Baptista de Matos [firma]

140Nottario Ecclesiástico

141Por recividos estos autos, con los dos reos Marcos Marcelo, y Bernarda Florian, que se pondrán en la Real Carcel de esta Ciudad; y traslado á el Promotor Fiscal nombrado, para que les ponga la acusacion, que á cada uno corresponde=

142Doctor Zarate [firma]

143Probeyo Y firmo lo de suso decretado el Señor Doctor Don Lorenso órtiz de Zarate, Abogado de la real Audiensa de los Reyes examinador sinodal de este óbispado Rector actual del Colegio Seminario de San Carlos Y San Marselo, y Jues General de Ydolatrias de este dicho óbispado por el Ylustrísimo Señor óbispo mi Señor a los dose dias del mes de Agosto de mil Setesientos setenta y un años

144Ante mí

145Juan Antonio Anachuri [firma]

146Notario de Ydolatrias

147f.l8v En blanco.

148f.19r

149Bernarda Florentina natural del Asiento de Guadalupe, presa en esta carsel de orden de Vuestra merced en la mejor forma de derecho paresco Ante Vuestra merced y digo: que a mas tiempo de tres meses que me allo presa, padesiendo, las mas rigorosas miserias que en lo humano puedan tolerarse, assi, de ambre, y desnudes, como, de malos tratamientos.

150Como, quando me traxeron presa estubiese criando, a mis pechos un hijo, y este se quedase por aberme paresido no estrañaria, me á resultado, una ynchason a los pechos, con tan fuerte dolor, y fiebre, que me parese apostema, y esto nesesita reparo que en la yntenperie de esta Carsel, no es Capas de executarse, y asi peligra mi Vida.

151De la enfermedad que Vuestra merced padese a resultado, el que mi causa, no tenga / / f.l9v / / y se aya mi prision continua: En estos terminos es de Justicia que usando Vuestra merced de su acostumbrada venignidad, se sirva mandar, que qualquiera de los medicos o zirujanos de esta ciudad reconoscan los accidentes que padesco, y el estado en que me alio, y fecho, se á de servir Vuestra merced mandar se me relaxe la prision bajo de Causion4 Juratoria, para pasar a el Santo Hospital, a fin de medesinarme por todo lo qual y dando por espreso lo mas favorable= A Vuestra merced pido y suplico que en fuerza de lo espuesto se sirva mandar en todo segun y como llevo pedido en Justa costa etc

152Bernarda Floriana [firma] Truxillo y Agosto 11 de 1771

153Victorino Elorriaga, Sirujano de esta Ciudad, reconocerá á esta parte, certificando la enfermedad que padese, y necesidad de curacion, para en su vista dar la providencia que sufre de Justicia=

154Doctor Zarate [firma]

155Ante mí

156Juan Antonio Anachuri Notario de Idolatrías

157Yo el theniente Victorino Elorriaga medico y / / f.20r / / sirujano de esta ciudad en virtud del deccreto que presede, pasé a la real Carsel, y en ella, pulsé y reconoci, a Bernarda Floriana, y alié, que en los pechos por la retension, de la leche, se le an firmado ya dos apostemas, sobre que le a recaido fiebre, y a todo se agrega el mal, de gota coral5 que a toda ora, le repite. De suerte que todo, nesesita de pronto reparo y en lugar comodo, y de lo contrario está en ebidente peligro de la vida todo lo qual testifico, segun mi Arte, y Juro por Dios nuestro Señor y a esta señal de crus ser cierto todo lo testificado, y para que conste lo firmé en truxillo y Agosto 8 de 1771

158Vitorino Elorriaga [firma]

159Truxillo y Agosto 12 de 1771

160En atención á lo que consta por la certificación antecedente, y constaran del accidente de gota coral que padese esta parte; se pasará á el Hospital de Mugeres, que esta a cargo de la Religion Bethlemítica, para que se le preste medicinas; encargándole á el Reverendo Padre Prefecto de parte de esta Jurisdiccion, mande se tenga cuidado de su persona, sin permitirla salga con pretexto alguno fuera de dicho Hospital; y ante todas cosas hará la causion Juratoria, que tiene ofrecida en su escripto=

161Doctor Zarate [firma]

162Ante mí

163Juan Antonio Anachuri [firma]

164Notario de Ydolatrias

165En la Ciudad de truxillo del Perú en trese dias / / f.20v / / del mes de Agosto de mil setesientos setenta y un años. Ante mí el Notario Publico de Ydolatrias, parecio Bernarda Floriana Yndia de la Jurisdicion de Saña y Presa en esta real Carsel por causa Criminal en que ha yncurrido de varias superaciones a quien doy feé que conosco, y Dixo: Que respecto á que por el Señor Jues de la Causa, esta mandado por el Auto antesedente con fecha del día de Ayer que se le relaje la prición baxo de la Causion Juratoria y se le pase a curar la enfermedad de que padese, a la enfermería de Mugeres del Ospitai de Bethelem poniendolo en efecto, por el tenor de la presente, Otorga Causion Juratoria en forma, y conforme a derecho, y se Obliga de que luego y quando se reponga a la salud se restituira a la pricion de que en alta sede siga la Causa por sus terminos; y renunció todas las leyes y fueros que le favorecen en tal caso y que en ninguna manera le balgan; pues luego que sane de la enfermedad se repondrá a la prición en que esta, conforme a lo mandado por dicho Auto por el Señor Juez de la Causa o de derecho qualquiera que de ella conosca y por que assi se cumplirá Juro a Dios nuestro Señor y a una Señal de Cruz segun forma de derecho siendo testigos Balentin Azalde, Juachin de Torres, y Don Alejandro Chaiguac, y no firmó por que dixo no saber de todo lo qual doy feé= Ante mí

166Juan Antonio Anachuri [firma]

167Notario de Ydolatrias

168En la Ciudad de truxillo del Perú en trese dias del / / f.21 r / / Mes de Agosto de mil Setesientos Setenta y un años yo el Notario Publico de Ydolatrias en cumplimiento del Auto antesedente con fecha del dia de Aier por el Señor Jues de esta Causa: haviendo otorgado Bernarda Floriana Yndia de la Jurisdición de Saña, presa en esta real Carzel por varias superticiones en que ha yncurrido la Caucion Juratoria que antessede la saqué de esta real Carzel y la entregué en la enfermeria de Mugeres a Manuela torín Negra criolla que haze oficios de enfermera, y de Ley notifique, é, hize saber el auto ya sitado de cuio tenor quedo ynteligenciada, y prometio de lo guardar y Cumplir segun su tenor y forma y que dicha Bernarda Floriana la tendria a buena Guarda y Custodia hasta que otra Cosa sele mande: de todo lo qual Doy feé

169Ante mí

170Juan Antonio Anachuri [firma]

171Notario de Ydolatrias

172Yncontinenti en dicho dia mes y Año yo el notario Publico de Ydolatrias Ley, é, hize saber el Auto de fojas_al Padre Perfecto Fray Pedro de Bethelem en su persona que lo oyó y entendio: de que doy feé=

173Anachuri [firma]

NOTES 1 Tela ligera con hilos separados.

2 El huercqueque es un pájaro. Este sobrenombre tiene connotaciones negativas.

3 Término jurídico: requisitoria.

4 Término jurídico.

5 Gota coral se le llamaba a la epilepsia. En la sierra todavía se usa este término.

© Institut français d’études andines, 2008

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères. Archivo Arquidiocesano de Trujillo Sección Idolatrías. (Años 1752-1760) Archivo Arquidiocesano de Trujillo Sección Idolatrías. (Año 1771) LIRE ACCÈS OUVERT MODE LECTURE EPUB PDF DU LIVRE PDF DU CHAPITRE FREEMIUM

Suggérer l'acquisition à votre bibliothèque ACHETER ePub / PDF Institut français d’études andines Institut français d’études andines PLAN DU SITE Collections Travaux de l'IFEA Tous les livres Accéder aux livres Par auteurs Par personnes citées Par mots clés Par géographique Par dossiers Informations Institut français d’études andines Accès réservé SUIVEZ-NOUS RSS Courriel : ifea.secretariat@cnrs.fr

URL : http://www.ifea.org.pe

Adresse : Jirón Batalla de Junín Lima 04 - PERÚ [Casilla 18-1217, Lima 18] Lima Perou

OpenEdition Books Catalogue Auteurs Éditeurs Dossiers Extraits OpenEdition OpenEdition est un portail de ressources électroniques en sciences humaines et sociales.

OpenEdition Journals OpenEdition Books Hypothèses Calenda OpenEdition Freemium Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firejuggler86:, this very long paste makes your Talk page hard to navigate. Are you familiar with some of the ways to alleviate this? One solution is to use template {{collapse top}}; here's an example:

There are other methods, but this one is simple and effective. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firejuggler86, I moved a comment of yours at Talk:Ilhan Omar as part of this edit. I was moving a couple blocks of comments that were less focused on the RfC question and more on whether discretionary sanctions apply. I got permission from all other participants in the move prior to starting, and didn't notice yours until I was almost finished. If you object the movement of your comment, I'll undo my change. I hope you don't! Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic RFC on Countries WikiProject. Thank you.

I am informing you as a participant in the RFC in question. Kahastok talk 17:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muskrat v. United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Indians.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Potato, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime Phone, that template in response to that edit is completely outlandish, and an editor of your level of experience ought to know better. For the record, the text of the piped link that I changed was wrong; and you may legitimately disagree with what I changed it to, but what you changed it back to is unambiguously wrong (there are no "Native Americans" in South America; that term is used exclusively for peoples indigenous to the United States, on the North American continent). It would have been better to just remove the pipe altogether and have the wikilink be a clean link to the actual article title that the link leads to (which is how originally was). Regardless of all of that, templates with accusations of vandalism because you disagreed with an edit is uncalled for, and I would appreciate a retraction. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are mistaken when implying that all the editors taking part in the discussion here [1] are involved in a content dispute. I and others, who can speak for themselves, have never contributed to the covid debate. You are taking a very blinkered approach to the discussion, which looks unlikely to be resolved in any case. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hold the views that you claim I hold. You either need to stop attributing opinions to me and other editors, or you need to provide diffs to back up your claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, then, what exactly was the the problem, as you saw it? That several respondents to an RFC made the unfortunate mistake of using the words "medical advice" when, in reality, what they were actually referring to was "medical information"? You raised alarm bells because you purportedly thought that editors believed MEDRS' purpose was for "how to give medical advice" in articles, was it not? All I did when I "attributed opinions" to you was replace the words "medical advice" with an explicit description of what the words "medical advice" actually refer to. I am aware that those other editors did say "medical advice", but clearly that isn't what they meant. And now you say that that wasn't what you meant, either. So was the issue merely them folks using the word "advice" when they meant "information"? Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, attempting to explain this would be a waste of my time. But once again, in the simplest form:

• You said "you want to change the guideline to broaden the scope"[2]
• I told you directly, in simple and plain language, that your claim was not true.
• You continued to repeat variations on this false claim multiple times.

Two typical reasons for this are:

1. You are unable to figure out why your claim is false.
   • For example, this could happen if you are unable to figure out that I never said the thing you repeatedly claimed I said (maybe you confused me with some other editor?).
   • For example, this sometimes happens when an editor thinks it's okay to claim that "your side" believes the thing that you don't believe yourself, even when the editor has been told that you don't believe it. (One might wonder why the editor says that's "your side" rather than "those other people's side").
2. You are unable to figure out why it's a problem to tell lies about what other editors say, or think nobody will object.

If either (or both) of those numbered items are even partly true, then I'd say that Valereee was entirely correct to block you, because anyone who can't figure that out something so simple as "don't repeat lies after you've been told that you're wrong" is probably not capable of being a productive contributor.

Regardless, please don't bother pinging me. I don't really have any hope that you can understand the problems you caused for yourself, and I won't be bothering to attempt a fourth round of explanation in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated false accusations by Firejuggler86. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter links to point to redirects from the original link, as you did with this edit. Additionally please do replace references to crewed space flights with older potentially sexist "manned" spaceflight terminology. Crewed is the correct word and the phrasing nominally used by space agencies and such, and has been agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Canterbury Tail talk 23:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Infrared thermometer for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. I'd also note that the comment you were responding to was from five years ago, so I think it's safe to say it's a dead topic. DonIago (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Cal Worthington. That that was original research should be clear to anyone, but now that I look over your talk page I see that there are more issues here than just the insertion of unverified trivia: misogyny, disruptive English variations, unexplained removal, edit warring, possibly questionable edits in DS territories, vandalism, false accusations--this is not a good situation. Drmies (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what kind of ridiculous edit summary is this? I don't mind the term being taken out of the lead, but your argument is unacceptable. The man you are accusing of "push[ing] ideologically motivated newly-manufactured vocabulary onto society" is Harold C. Conklin, who published this essay in 1964, and in it he reports that another anthropologist stated that "it has since gained some acceptance". So, you claim that in a peer-reviewed publication scientist X, who cites scientist Y's peer-reviewed publication to report a fact, is -- what? some gender activist? Sixty years ago? In a Festschrift for George Murdock? Canterbury Tail, I am going to consider dropping a topic ban here related to gender, but obviously these issues are bigger: the editor doesn't understand how to phrase things neutrally, doesn't understand what secondary sources are, isn't able to properly contextualize textual material. What do you think? GorillaWarfare, you've dealt with this subject area (the convergence between a kind of incompetence and what appears to be some male-oriented slant). What can we do? Drmies (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, CIR issues, editing against consensus w/re women.

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 ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, I am very shocked and confused by this indef block. I've never (that I'm aware of!) been blocked for any amount of time for any reason in the past. (if I have been, I must not have attempted any edits during that time). Could you please direct me to the noticeboard where the block request was filed? I looked at all of the ones I could find that I thought it could possibly be at, but was unable to find anything.

I am very deeply troubled by the charge of "editing against consensus w/re to women"; could you please provide some specific examples? I can neither explain myself (in the event there is misunderstanding) nor acknowledge that I was in error without knowing what this is in regard to. Thanks, Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FJ86, there was no block request at any noticeboard. There doesn't have to be. I blocked you because you've been disruptive and because your disruption wastes other people's time. If you read through the multiple warnings here on your talk, which is what I did before I blocked you, you'll find warnings about everything I wrote in the block reasoning. You're free to make an unblock request; the instructions are in the notice. —valereee (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Valereee: Yes, I am aware of the unblock request procedures; I cannot request an unblock if I don't understand what I was blocked for in the first place, though, and as you know, asking questions about your block in unblock requests is strictly forbidden. Therefore, as per the recommendations in the blocking/unblocking policy, I am trying to make certain I have all the correct information from the blocking administrator, you, before I do so. By policy, you are going to be consulted by any reviewing admins of any unblock requests. Therefore, of course, I need to be clear about what you are going to tell the unblock request reviewing admin, because if I am not then I will appear dishonest. (I also humbly beg you to forgive my long winded text and bolding - I have a tendency to ramble when I'm forced into a position of having to defend myself, so I bold certain critical segments so they won't be lost in a sea of text). Regarding talk page warnings - most editors delete their talk page warnings. I do not, but I also do not engage in any edit warring or any kinds of personal conflicts with editors, for a number of reasons, mainly that I hate all kinds of personal conflict. So, if I understand you correctly: I have been indef banned because of past editing behaviour that has led to talk page warnings, but no sanctions or temporary blocks or anything else beyond talk page warnings - is that correct? (this is a legitimate inquiry, not intended as adversarial in any way). Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it considered improper in all cases to ask a blocking admin if they would be willing to hear the blocked editor answer for themself and consider whether or not to keep or lift the block before filing a formal unblock request with a 3rd party admin? If yes, that's fine, and I won't; the policy is unclear on the matter, so I am unsure. The question of the block notwithstanding, though, I have been accused by Drmies, wrongly (i.e. mistakenly), of being a male-slanted sexist, and what you wrote in the block reason suggests your assessment of me is the same. That particular charge is something I take very personally, it could not be farther from the truth, and I would like to request that you grant me the chance to respond to that particular charge - as you did for yourself the other day when it was insinuated (mistakingly) that you were repeating racist talking points (re: BLM and January 6). (note: I was following that discussion before I was blocked - I didn't happen upon it because I was stalking your activity after the block - gods forbid!). Anyway, regardless of whatever other opinions you have about me - incompetent, disruptive, those are legitimate opinions that I take no personal issue with - but the sexist/cheuvanist thing I do take deep issue with, and while some people are going to think what they're going to think no matter what, you've never struck me as anything other than fair, so if you will allow me to explain where I do stand regarding that subject, I would greatly appreciate that..thanks, and please forgive my long windedness and lack of knowledge of handling sanctions (recall this is my first time). Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also my obligation to respond to the accusations immediately preceding the block notice. I strongly object to Drmies' accusation of my being "male slanted", though, (whom I must presume to be the filer of the block request, as the blocking reasons given were related to what he accused me of only three hours earlier; and that, as he was an "involved" party, because I'd undone a couple of his edits at another article (which dispute I fully concede, btw), he would not be permitted to take administrator action himself). And to clarify what I meant in that edit summary: I was not criticising the source itself, I saying that it is WP:UNDUE to be stating in Wikivoice that nieces and nephews are collectively called "nibblings" in the English language - they're not, by and reasonable definition of the word "is" (sayeth Bill Clinton). Consider the second language English learner/speaker that reads that, then uses the word in the company of native English speakers - "Your what? Nibblings?! You nibble your niece and nephew?" In my mind thats reckless and irresponsible on our part. (I do stand corrected on the motivation of the neologist, though - not ideological, just simply jargon; anthropology has all kinds of jargon for kinship types that English has no words for, e.g. cross-cousin, parallel-cousin. Presenting them as used in the real world in English is still undue.) Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence, before your edit, said "A niece is female, while a nephew is male, with the term nibling used in place of the gender specific niece and nephew in some specialist literature."

It seems to me that when we explicitly label a term as being used "in some specialist literature", we are inherently not "presenting them as used in the real world in English". I will therefore go revert your change. At minimum, just having that will help the handful of people who came to Wikipedia trying to figure out what the family genealogy buff is talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "indefinite" does not mean "infinite". You might want to review the Wikipedia:Standard offer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FJ86, you changed crewed to manned twice in an article with no explanation, creating a redirect where there hadn't been one. You objected to a gender-neutral term for apparently ideological reasons, and you're still going on about it here. To me this looks like someone who is editing in a pointy way around gender, and yes, crewed>manned looks like it's about women. I'm happy to strike mention of that specific issue if it's the one you're taking exception to, although the edits around Native Americans are a similar concern. Competence issues and disruptiveness are quite enough to be going on with and can cover the same territory.

An indefinite block doesn't mean permanently banned. It means blocked from editing for now. It means you need to convince someone you'll stop editing disruptively. All those warnings (and complaints and trips to ANI) were other editors telling you that you were being disruptive, so I find it a bit disingenuous that you're talking as if you didn't have sufficient previous notice that there were issues with your participation here. Yes, it's fine if you'd like to discuss with me (or anyone) before or instead of making an unblock request, though it's likely to slow the process down for you. —valereee (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one strawman and misleading argument after another, Firejuggler. I can't speak for Valereee, but you weren't blocked, I assume, for having warnings still on your talk page--rather, what they indicated were longterm problems with your editing that you never addressed. You could have removed them, but they would have still been there in the history. The particular edit on Niece and nephew, where you said "it is WP:UNDUE to be stating in Wikivoice that nieces and nephews are collectively called "nibblings" in the English language", well, the text that you removed never ever said that. And your edit summary, in which you seem to claim that an anthropologist publishing peer-reviewed research is somehow channeling their POV slant to modern-day Wikipedia editors, it's prima facie ridiculous. It suggests you don't actually understand what "Wikipedia's voice" is, that you cannot recognize what is and what is not proper secondary research, and that you do not understand what the role of a Wikipedia writer and editor is. On top of that, those edits, which are misinformed in terms of what scholarship and voice are, are also pushed towards a particular POV. I mean, replacing "crewed" with "manned"--even Rad Dad (you might follow them on Instagram) wouldn't object to that.

Finally, no, I didn't call for a block: I pinged two editors for advice, one of whom had a problem with the same issue that I found problematic, and one, an administrator, whose judgment I trust. You could, at any moment during those last few months, discussed the matters that I and others before me had trouble with, but you chose not to. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, yes, the issue isn't at all the warnings still being on the talk page. I would have seen them whether or not you'd removed them, as they're in the edit history for the page, which is something any admin would check when considering whether a block is appropriate. You'd asked why you were blocked, and I referred you to those warnings. If they hadn't been on the page I would have told you to look at the history. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: After giving the matter considerable thought, I've come to the realisation that it is absolutely imperative for me to set the record straight regarding mine own POV, and that any discussion of my editing is completely pointless until this matter is addressed; for, if the conclusions that you and Drmies came to regarding the underlying motives for my editing history were correct, then that would necessarily mean I were a bad faith editor (and thus unredeemable/unreformable). Anyway, the edits (I presume) in question were never motivated by any kind of POV (in the typical wiki-sense of the word) whatsoever (and nor was I ever aware that there was a consensus against this, but this post is not to address editing issues - strictly personal POV/good vs bad faith matters). I am against "language 'activism' & 'policing'" of any kind (regardless of what POV it is motivated by; the earliest use of such pattern that I can think of, though I'm sure its usage goes far back into the reaches of time immemorial, was by the fascists and the nazis. more recently, it has been practised by the various right wing and far right factions in America, and only in the last couple of years have these tactics been taken up by the "progressive" "left"). (On that thought, I will also note that the right, historically, appears to have had greater effectiveness with this tactic, at least in the immediate short term. In 2021, civil rights of people of colour, and women's rights, are under the heaviest barrage of cannon fire than they have in generations - openly and unapologetically - and it hath corresponded almost simultaneously with the upping of the ante of "woke" strong policing of language. Which makes me think this whole campaign is harming the very same people that it's supposedly advocating for). Anyway, I hope that cleared things up regarding that; again, this was not to address my performance as an editor, only the suspicion that I have been editing with prejudicial/malintended motives, which I felt required clearing up immediately before any other issues could constructively be addressed. thanks, and hope you have nice day Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a MOS, it has consensus, and if you are going to edit against that for ideological reasons, your edits are going to be seen as disruptive. I'm afraid none of what you've said above is convincing me you should be editing. The length of it alone is problematic. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, I'm not finding this editor currently mentioned at ANI, which discussion is it? —valereee (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Looks like it's probably Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AmorLucis, based on [3]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a thread you were in has been mentioned as being part of the claim the reported user was accused of rascism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not able to comment there, but I will say here that - while I don't think I they've said anything that could positively prove racism (though with their countless walls of texts I can't be certain), they are without a doubt a single purpose account thus far, with a focus solely on Juneteenth specifically, that seems to be aimed at diminishing the significance of the historical event that the day commemorates; and doing so in a way that suggests that the social and economic effects of American chattel slavery on black Americans has been minimal. And they've openly declared they don't need secondary sources (or even any sources) that specifically tie these topics together (particularly with Juneteenth; there's plenty of other post-emancipation topics that could easily have the topic of women's rights expanded in those articles, e.g., the Fifteenth Amendment, but they're fixated on Juneteenth for whatever reason), so..whatever the name for that kind of editing behaviour happens to be, I'm not sure, but that's my take on that editor. Regards, Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you comment there?Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Firejuggler86 is currently indefinitely blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have now be told this on my talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And would you be happy if someone posted the above there?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah..no need to pile on, at this point. There's not a whole lot in what I wrote that hasn't already been said in that thread, and there's no need to rekindle the same drama after it's already settled down :). Thanks, though - and for what it's worth, I think your handling of the matter was entirely proper, in spite of the heat that it brought on (but I guess that goes with the territory). cheers Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Firejuggler86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by valereee with the reasons for the block given as: disruptive editing, [incompetence], editing against consensus w/re to women (note: struck by - I assume - blocking admin; I've just seen this, so am striking those parts of the unblock request as moot). I assume that she was alerted by Drmies, either directly or indirectly, because the block came 3 hours after Drmies warned me for disruptive editing in response to two edits I'd made (which I was in the wrong for; no further such edits were made), then subsequently posted on my talk page in response to a recent edit summary of mine in which they said I was incompetent and had "some kind of male-oriented slant". The last of these I will address first, because if that assessment of mine own POV were correct and I were editing to push some misogynist POV, that would necessarily mean I were editing in bad faith; which, AFAICS, would be the main rationale supporting an indef block. (EDIT note upon second glance, it is improper and not my place to be making such inferences here). It is not true, however While that might not be an unreasonable conclusion to make, I strongly maintain that that was an unfortunate misunderstanding; I provided an in-depth explanation regarding this issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Firejuggler86&diff=prev&oldid=1035641841, and I humbly request all who are looking at this to accept this as accept this as a truthful explanation for the behaviour that led to a POV assumption. (the reason I think this is important being that the actions were due solely to my opinions on encyclopaedia style, not on any kind of ideological POV of mine own whatsoever; I recognise and acknowledge that the latter type of behaviour would be bad faith editing by definition; and, I promise that if unblocked I will avoid such situations in the future by starting a discussion when I see unfamiliar or novel usages of terminology in articles and fail to find previous discussions on the matter). Regarding "editing against consensus (w/re to women)": the only thing that I can think of that this could possibly pertain to is regarding Regarding disruptive edits, recently I unknowingly made reversions against a consensus for the mass purging of the adjective "manned" from all current and historic spaceflight articles and replacing it with the neologism "crewed". I had been unaware that there was a consensus to do this, and I reversed the changes in a few articles, mostly Apollo program related articles and various Soviet space program related articles. I will make no further such edits now that I am aware there was a consensus established in support of this, and I promise that I will start a discussion regarding any unfamiliar or novel technologies used in articles that I'm unable to find prior discussions on instead of just switching back to the previous terms. (I might also, if I am unblocked, start an MOS discussion suggesting, perhaps, adding to affected articles some kind of parenthetical noties or explanatory footnotes for these newly-deployed terms like "crewed" or "primary bedroom" in place of "master bedroom": it doesn't serve readers well to switch out longstanding established standard terms for things without any kind of acknowledgement or explanation, as if they had always been that way). Incompetence & disruptove editing: while I, like everyone, am human and have made mistakes in the past, the vast majority of my edits have been, to the best of my knowledge, constructive, and improvements to the encyclopedia. Most of the edits I make are minor corrections of grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, word choice, etc. I also often rewrite content with strongly-worded POV to maintain a NPOV content that was written in a non-neutral or unencyclopaedic tone, so that they will better conform to our policies and guidelines; I admit that my edit summaries are sometimes non-neutral: but, non-neutral edit summaries somewhat seem to be common practice here, and in my opinion it is helpful way for editors to keep checks and balances on each other. As for disruptive editing: I have no wish to be disruptive, and if there are any ongoing/persistent editing practices of mine that have been disruptive and are brought to my attention (that I've not already addressed in this unblock request), I will adjust my editing accordingly. The blocking admin cited "all past talk page warnings" as the editing behaviour that led to the indef block; according to the blocking policy, incidents of disruption typically last a day to a few days, and I note that: despite receiving talk page warnings, I had never been sanctioned prior to this occasion; that I am clearly not a "disruption-only" editor; I was, as far as I knew, prior to being indeffed, an editor in good standing for 6 years. I do take this seriously, and would like to be given a chance to improve from my past mistakes. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• FJ86, an unblock request needs to do two things -- show us you understand the reason for the block, and convince us you know how to fix it -- and only those two things. Yours does neither, and instead is full of extraneous information.

Here's an example of what is needed:

I understand that the edits I've been making around gender and ethnicity in language are disruptive. I didn't intend to be disruptive, but as I don't really understand this area, I simply won't make any changes in that area from here on in. I understand that my inability to be brief is a competence issue, and I will try to work on that. I understand that messages and warnings on my talk page are serious requests for me to fix some issue with my editing, and from here on in I will answer them promptly and try to learn what the concern is and how to avoid causing the same issue in the future.

And then stop. Don't talk about other people, about your six years here, nothing else is needed and in fact it's harming you here.

No objection to anyone lifting this block to provide WP:ROPE, but I'd suggest a condition be placed on it that FJ86 agrees to promptly respond to all messages on their talk page to determine what the concern is and how to address that concern. —valereee (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FJ86, feel free to treat the unblock request as if no one has responded to it and just delete/add the stuff without underscoring/striking. This will let other admins see the current version, and anyone who wants to see a past version has easy access. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved with (Caucasian race) has some content that is proposed to be moved to another article (Caucasoid). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Caucasian race. Thank you. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Firejuggler86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was indef blocked in July for "disruptive editing" and "WP:CIR issues". The blocking admin did not list any specific incidents that led to her decision to block, but cited all of the past talk page warnings that had been posted to my user talk page. Most of the "disruptive editing" warnings I have received are either quite old, or were unjustified (which ones I have now responded to); however, the one that was posted immediately prior to my being blocked, under "July 2021" - which was in regard to a partial revert of the warning editor that I had made to an article, I do acknowledge I should not have made, and I will not make reverts of similar nature should I be unblocked; while I do contend they were made in good faith, and while I do not believe that in isolation they rise to the level of "disruptive editing", I do recognise that continuing to edit in such manner would be disruptive, and I will not do so any more. Also, please note that I had never received any sanctions of any kind at all whatsoever prior to this block, and as far as I knew was an editor in good standing, and the vast majority of my edits have been constructive; those that have not been, I wish to be allowed a chance to learn from so I can improve as an editor. Thanks Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• No objection to anyone lifting this block to provide this editor another chance, but I'd suggest a condition be placed on it that FJ86 agrees to promptly respond to all messages on their talk page to determine what the concern is and how to address that concern. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

umm Heilcoptor (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]