User talk:Ubikwit - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 10 December 2012 (→Result of the WP:AE complaint about editing at List of indigenous peoples: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:47, 10 December 2012 by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (→Result of the WP:AE complaint about editing at List of indigenous peoples: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Misplaced Pages.

Main Introduction — What is Misplaced Pages?
The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Misplaced Pages?
Quick Introductions to:

Policies and guidelines — How does Misplaced Pages actually work?
Talk pages — How do I communicate in Misplaced Pages?
Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
Navigating Misplaced Pages — How do I find my way around?

What Misplaced Pages is not - even though everyone can edit it, Misplaced Pages is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?

If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Misplaced Pages's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Misplaced Pages.
For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

November 2012

Your recent editing history at British Israelism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. KillerChihuahua 13:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at British Israelism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. KillerChihuahua 13:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Z10

Look, you need to slow down and read some policies so you know the rules here. All those blue links in the messages people have posted here? Click on them, and study the linked pages. When you are back to editing, you will have a better understanding of how things work here, and hopefully won't run afoul of the rules again, ok? KillerChihuahua 14:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm rather too busy with work over the next couple of days to go through anything, but there has been a somewhat cryptic response:

What's up with this? Ubikwit, I thought your edit was generally good, but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss on the talk page or that there is any vandalism going on. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC) from yet another user: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Itsmejudith on the article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:British_Israelism so I would like to simply touch base with that person and here what she has to say. Itsmejudith would appear to be generally not critical of my edits, incidentally, so though they may need some adjustment, the overall content is sound. It should be noted that the page in question has been categorized as: "within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism "Ubikwit (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

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).

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

Request reason:

I am somewhat new at this contributing process, and admittedly haven't read many policies, but I have initiated discussions about the edits in question on two talk pages, and have found where the talk page to the article on British Israelism is, so I would like to continue the discussion there. Note that another use has already reverted the changes by KillerChihuahau to the article in question Ubikwit (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, and it's only 24 hours which is standard for a first violation of 3RR. This short block should give you some time to review policies and guidelines before you resume editing tomorrow. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Note to Ubikwi and reviewing admin: I reverted myself. I did not mean to revert Ubikwi, I was going to block him and misclicked. I therefore reverted myself, as I have no dog in this fight. Another editor has reverted my revert, thus effectively reverting Ubikwi, not me. I dont' edit that article. KillerChihuahua 14:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your block is only for 24 hours, which will perhaps give you a little time to read the policies which you have so far not looked at. you have, beyond doubt, been guilty of edit-warring; your edits are available for all to see. As you dispute appears to only about the difference in conceptual meaning between the words "doctrine" and "belief", which words do in any case have a very similar meaning, and given that the entire article, in my personal opinion, is written about a very questionable belief/doctrine, is this really worth getting blocked for? --Anthony Bradbury 18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Long post by Ubiquit which is about content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, I would suggest that the material on this topic that has developed over the years represents to complicated a jumble of hypothetical musings to call it a belief in any coherent sense. That is why I initially used the wording "quasi-religious" doctrine. It can probably be said to consist of more than one doctrine. A belief, on the other hand, seems to relate more to a state of mind related to epistemology. But that is another, more philosophical question. The initial objection was solely to the phrase "quasi-religious", apparently, which constituted only a very small portion of the edit, yet the user deleted the entire edit. Several other Misplaced Pages users on the Talk page for this article state emphatically that there is no support for the topic in modern scholarship whatsoever. It was speculative and specious from the start, spread by people in association with the propagation of Christianity after the Enlightenment, and there would appear to have been an agenda related to religion in one way or another. The manner in which the people that have contributed to the creation of the article in its present form seems suspect almost immediately when reading it. Some of the edits that I made in fact relate to specific points addressed in the talk page, of which i was not aware. The first point being including mention of the research that debunks the doctrine in the introduction to the article, the absence of which in its present form is telling. It is important to point out that this was a doctrine associated with missionary type activity propagated not only in Britain but also in Japan starting in the later half of the 19th century by a Scottish immigrant that was initially based in Japan. It was not a "belief" that appeared out of nowhere. Another of my posts in an article on McLeod: http://en.wikipedia.org/Nicholas_McLeod At any rate, I will read some of the policies, such as that one original research, and take this up on the article Talk page in a manner such as to generate some consensus before re-editing the article. In its present form that article is organized in an inchoate format and is loaded with dogma and doctrine that is not related in a coherent manner to the topic as a whole. Ubikwit (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Long post by Ubiquit which is about content.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Well, I would suggest that the material on this topic that has developed over the years represents to complicated a jumble of hypothetical musings to call it a belief in any coherent sense. That is why I initially used the wording "quasi-religious" doctrine. It can probably be said to consist of more than one doctrine. A belief, on the other hand, seems to relate more to a state of mind related to epistemology. But that is another, more philosophical question.

The initial objection was solely to the phrase "quasi-religious", apparently, which constituted only a very small portion of the edit, yet the user deleted the entire edit. Several other Misplaced Pages users on the Talk page for this article state emphatically that there is no support for the topic in modern scholarship whatsoever. It was speculative and specious from the start, spread by people in association with the propagation of Christianity after the Enlightenment, and there would appear to have been an agenda related to religion in one way or another. The manner in which the people that have contributed to the creation of the article in its present form seems suspect almost immediately when reading it. Some of the edits that I made in fact relate to specific points addressed in the talk page, of which i was not aware. The first point being including mention of the research that debunks the doctrine in the introduction to the article, the absence of which in its present form is telling. It is important to point out that this was a doctrine associated with missionary type activity propagated not only in Britain but also in Japan starting in the later half of the 19th century by a Scottish immigrant that was initially based in Japan. It was not a "belief" that appeared out of nowhere. Another of my posts in an article on McLeod: http://en.wikipedia.org/Nicholas_McLeod At any rate, I will read some of the policies, such as that one original research, and take this up on the article Talk page in a manner such as to generate some consensus before re-editing the article. In its present form that article is organized in an inchoate format and is loaded with dogma and doctrine that is not related in a coherent manner to the topic as a whole. Ubikwit (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ubiquit, this is the wrong place to discuss content. We do not care about content here, on your talk page, in the discussion about your block. Please read the policies which are linked, especially WP:V, WP:EW, WP:CON. Then when your block expires you may attempt to convince others of your views on Talk:British Israelism, not here or on anyone else's User talk page. KillerChihuahua 21:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm FisherQueen. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Paul Barlow because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism etc

Hi, thanks for the message. You accidentally put it on my user page instead of the talk page, so it got reverted by another user (hence the message above from Fisher Queen). I guess "You Can Act Like a Man" has decided he's in some sort of feud with me because of a dispute about the page on Richard III of England (he's one of those people who has decided that Richard was really a nice guy, awesome ruler and loving uncle, so the page should not say bad stuff about him). Unfortunately he does not live up to his user name. As far as I know he has no intetest in BI as such. I'm not sure which user is reverting your edits. Is it John C or "You Can Act Like a Man"? Paul B (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, Jon C does seem to be getting into a feud of his own (though you did confuse British Israelism with British Imperialism in the edit! ). I agree that the edit is not irrelevant, but might just be undue weight. It's a judgement call. Ideally this should be talked through as it's in danger of sliding into Hatfield/McCoy territory. I think you can get a bit too intense defending your views, which leads edit warring over pointless arguments over minor matters like the great "belief" versus "doctrine" dispute. unfortunately that's now leading to one of those unhelpful power struggles. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the Imperialism slip, but left that out in the subsequent revision. The distinction between "belief" and "doctrine" is important, as I've tried to briefly explain, and as Doug was helpful in pointing out that one "can certainly believe in a doctrine". An individual can arrive at a belief in the afterlife on his or her own, but that is not so in the case of a doctrine, which requires promulgation and persuasion.

In any case, the genetic evidence is conclusive in this case, as in the case of the British. Parfitt has found genetic evidence linking the Lemba in Ethiopia to Jews, for example, but even that cannot be directly tied to "Lost Tribes". Jon C. could perhaps claim to be claiming that BI is irrelevant, as I don't have a source to connect them-yet-, so I just added the page to the See Also section. But his edits are always total reversions, not edits of specific points.

I live in Japan and am fairly well-read in Japanese history, including the topic of the Hata clan. My primary objective is to prevent the dissemination of pseudo-religious nonsense on these pages. There are a lot of Koreans that try to claim that the Hata were Korean, for example--not even related to Ten Lost Tribes--and Westerners that attempt to collude with the Koreans in bolstering their claims to unmerited contribution to Japanese culture. Both of those groups are sort of outsiders here in Japan, either not wanting to integrate or not wanting to spend the time and effort to learn the language, etc. Fabricated claims such as those can be used to attempt to cause divisions between groups of people, influence public opinion and may even have political ramifications. They are fundamentally divisive, and are promulgated with one or more objectives in mind. The case of McLeod demonstrates that clearly in light of his association with both Christian missionaries and probably the Freemasons.

I don't know what this guy Jon C.'s attachment to these topics is, but the fact that he is editing an article on the Hata clan is rather strange, because the Hata clan is a rather recondite subject even in Japanese history. The only connection is the fabrication about Nestorian Christians, Ten Lost Tribes, etc. It is also rather strange that the guy writes about Ireland a lot , it seems, and has a strange Hindu-esque image on his User's page.

I don't see anyway to connect the dots for these individuals in a manner that produces a coherent image. I've already warned a couple of these people that I'm not going to tolerate further edits without Talk. In light of the repeated nature of the edits on several related pages by Jon C., I doubt they're going to cease and desist without arbitration in the end.

I have a substantial library of Japanese references, and have actually done some paid translation work (at a very low rate) for the Misplaced Pages Kyoto Project several years ago, so I will contribute what I can to Wiki when I have time in that regard, but I'm primarily aiming to clear out content that is pseudo-religious or otherwise attempts to promote some sort of entitlement mentality based on false claims.

But most of the stuff on the BI article is of a lower order, structural nature at present, so I've ordered a couple of reference, including Parfitt, in order to frame the articles in a manner that should not need alteration and should facilitate navigation and ready comprehension of the subject matter presented. To many significant people are trivialized or glossed over, and too much frivolous stuff is strewn about in a manner that makes the article practically unintelligible. I will address these issues in a piecemeal manner with each edit, so feel free to comment and critique at will.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:VANDAL. I am not a vandal, and the onus is on you to make a case for your changes. I'll happily converse with you on article talk pages, but I'm under no obligation to inform you before reverting dubious edits or to keep your threats on my user talk. Please don't post there again. — Jon C. 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked through the vandalism page briefly, and find Misplaced Pages's policies to be generally straightforward and easy to grasp. While I welcome your change in tone, please bear in mind that the matter at hand is the editing of an encyclopedia, and frankly, I consider your edits to be the edits that are suspect (and dubious). I have adapted my editing practices since familiarizing myself with Misplaced Pages policies, and will continue to improve in that regard.

Incidentally, all of your reversions of my edits have taken place on articles relating to claims of descent from the biblical Ten Lost Tribes. Let me assure you that I am going to find every page on Misplaced Pages that presents such claims, without specific genetic proof, and edit them in a manner that clearly represents the claims to be patently false.

Am I incorrect in assuming that you must have even learned about the existence of the Hata clan, for example, in connection with the false claims of descent spread by Christian missionaries, etc? No need to answer that, but please bear in mind that the Misplaced Pages database provides the capacity to review these interactions should an editing war or the like require arbitration. Furthermore, I believe that your Talk page is the place on this Website that I'm supposed to address you in advance when there is a chance of a dispute occurring.--Ubikwit (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hata clan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman McLeod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

BI

Reverted to a February 2011 version - after that a pro BNP editor made major changes with dubious sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman McLeod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE report

Hello Ubikwit. I moved your comment at AE so it would fit in the normal place. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, Ed, thanks for letting me know.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

1RR

With this edition you violated 1RR- 1 revert/24 hours. As this violation could lead to block from further editing and in order to avoid this I kindly ask you for immediate self-revert (your editions were made in 16:31 08.11.2012 and 14:31 next day)--Tritomex (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I believe you are incorrect, as the first instance was an edit, not a reversion. Secondly, the material is gone for the moment, as a tacit consensus has been reached to leave Jews and Palestinians off for the moment, though I will argue for the inclusion of Palestinians and the exclusion of Jews/Israelis/Israelites from the list. Since you haven't responded to my question regarding genetics, I assume that you are averse to attempting to give concrete form to an outline of the theoretical basis upon which you assert its relevance. Details are not what I was asking for, simply a concise summary of the basis of assertion of its relevance. I'm not going to address irrelevant genetics data at all except at the level that demonstrates its low order of significance with respect to the case at hand.

I see that Crock81 has left a revealing response to the delusional strategy he intends to adopt with regard to religious sources. His claim could be analyzed as an assertion that the denial of his biblical literalism would constitute a denial of his human right to freedom of religion, wherefore he assumes the prerogative to negate reality.

That is representative of the mentality of a group of co-religionists that seek to instantiate a past glorified by their religious texts at the expense of the present reality of an oppressed people being denied even more than their human right of freedom of religion. And that is one aspect of the impetus for the movement to protect indigenous peoples in the first place. I will respond to Crock81 with the a somewhat expanded version of the above-described content later on the Talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Result of the WP:AE complaint about editing at List of indigenous peoples

Hello Ubikwit. Please see the result of this complaint. The List of indigenous peoples is being fully protected, and I'm leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)