User talk:Anonymous44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Serbophobia[edit]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. You moved Anti-Serbism to Serbophobia by copying and pasting the contents. Please don't do that, as the page histories are lost, and for GFDL reasons, they are needed. If you want to move the page, ask an administrator at the help desk or the administrators' noticeboard. --Telex 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Highgate Vampire[edit]

I would suggest suggesting that 195.... and 81.... are the same person, report a 3RR violation as such, and ask for a block on both.

Actually, to save you some time, I just blocked the pair. If they keep it up after tomorrow, try that strategy. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold text== NPA ==

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GabrielF 15:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(A note for the benefit of Wikipedia chroniclers): that was in connection with this edit of mine. --Anonymous44 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the message. In general I agree with you but sometimes it's necessary and helpful for an article that has editors who might be too closely connected to the topic and have a hard time seeing bias, or maybe they even wish to POV push intentionally. In anycase, several other editors, if united, can force the other side that is lacking sound arguments to either defend the issue, rethink their possition, or cause them give in as they realize that its going to be untenable, and counter-productive. Sometimes this entails some edit warring jst to see f they can get away with POV pushing. If they can, they will. The cure sometimes involves mounting an opposition within the community that is willing to be bold and not timid with their rights to assert the version of the article that is most in accord with NPOV policies--to assert their consensus and vote with their edits. The worst that can happen is that if it continues the article gets locked for a while and this also encourages both sides to talk it out more, as well as get others involved in working out what the real objections are, and if they are valid.Giovanni33 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No.91 (aka Anonymous44) tried the same line with me, and I was definitely impuning his ability to edit a wikipedia article according to the rules. On the Michael Parenti article he wants to push a particular, actually unrelated, issue. Jbowler (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC) John Bowler
LOL.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consider joining me in filing an RFC over the Zionism links issue.[edit]

I'd like to keep this as narrow as possible, and focus only on the links section. If you're interested, could I ask you to provide me with:

a) a few diffs illustrating reversions on the article page that reflect bias on the part of career editors there

b) (if you feel like it) specific instances of incivility or bias you encounted on the talk page there.

Thanks, BYT 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good day![edit]

Since today is such a nice day, I decided I'd be a good friend and spread the Wiki Love by sending you this list of former members of the United States House of Representatives. --Evergreens78 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice of you, but I think my talk page is easier to use without it, so I removed it. Best, --Anonymous44 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request[edit]

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I feel much the same. However, the policy is certainly better than it was before, so thank you for your efforts, discussion and support through this very acrimonious process. Tim Vickers 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I admire your patience and your truly tireless efforts in driving this issue forward. I agree that the current version is an improvement, and I hope it stays (more or less) that way, so that everyone can devote more of their time to editing. Once again, best wishes! --Anonymous44 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

Thank you for your support, I had the feeling I was not entirely wrong. I would appreciate your opinion at User talk:Until(1 == 2)/Removal of uncited content. It would be nice to have more input, so I don't feel like it is just a small group of people telling me what to do. Until(1 == 2) 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced[edit]

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent post to WT:V. The choice of the word "verifiable" for WP:V, instead of "sourced" or "verified", is very intentional. It reflects a consensus among editors that information that clearly can be cited does not need to be removed only because no explicit citation is given. This is in accord with the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This meaning of verifiability has been discussed several times since I have arrived at WP, and the result is always to keep the current wording. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh God. So you wrote this to me five months ago. But guess what - I'm repeating this for the umptieth time, to the umptieth person - I never said everything unsourced needs to be deleted. I only said that one may delete it, i.e. that the editor who wants to keep it should provide a source rather than edit war if someone deletes it. That this is the only, I repeat only reasonable meaning of the phrase "burden of evidence". It's also the only reasonable way for Wikipedia to work. It is frightening that I am even forced to debate this with so many people. So I won't do it anymore, and God help you all. --Anonymous44 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No Complaint[edit]

Copied from User:Jilliana27's talk page:

I see you have been complaining to Jbowler about the difficulty of reference formatting. My recommendation is - if it's too difficult to figure out how to do it, don't worry about it, just complete it in the same way as you would complete a normal Word document. The only thing that really matters is to make sure that your footnote numbers mean something, so all you need to add to your present text is a reference list at the bottom explaining which books you have designated with [3], [6] etc.. That shouldn't be too much work, and that's what would make your material really verifiable. The conversion to the usual Wikipedia-style footnotes can be done by someone else, it's not urgent at all and in fact it's not even formally mandatory (see WP:Citing sources. --Anonymous44 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest two things here one is that I asked for assistance and the other is that we have opposing agendas. I would like to see an appropriate article, properly cited which a consensus may agree upon in the near future. You seem contentious and argumentative.--Jilliana27 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll change the word "complaining" to "saying". You have said that it's difficult. Will that make you pay attention to the rest of what I wrote, namely that you don't need to do the difficult part? I'm trying to help here, despite the fact that we have opposing opinions, because our common goal should be to fix this as soon as possible. --Anonymous44 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User 216.246.137.137[edit]

Is a user out of the north east of the USA, the problem is the set of edits of said user are similar to some of yours. No linguistics I admit (the Cyrillic stuff is popular music). Anyway, I'm pretty sure I recognize the text, so whoever it is has decided to return to their old ways. I summarily deleted it - in so far as it contains any facts they duplicate those already in the Communism section. Jbowler (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No kidding, similar to mine? And perhaps to User:VMORO, who resembles me a lot, as we all know? (you might get this irony, if you try hard). Frankly, I'm sick of your stupid suspicions. It's a pity you couldn't possibly convince the admins to do a WP:checkuser on their basis, but unless you are going to try it, just spare me your ... thoughts.--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not my suspicions, I'm actually relaying them from several other people who are looking at this but not editting. I just investigated them. I suspect the problem actually comes almost entirely from US students - almost certainly US born students - because they have been exposed to precisely the sort of media manipulation Parenti criticises. You had many of the same reactions as me (i.e. that a reasonable person would read the various texts in a critical way.) Unfortunately wikipedia is a US publication read mostly by US readers and Parenti seems to aim to be iconoclastic of US icons. Checkuser is pointless - it doesn't matter whether the damage is done by one person or many, it's the same, and wikipedia has no method of preventing it; it takes 30 seconds to reset a DSL router to get a new IP. As I said before my strategy is to get WP:entity to take responsibility for their own mess. Jbowler: 74.32.171.56 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you'd better try Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and explain what you are worried about to the admins there. This is as close to the "WP:entity" as you can get - though strictly speaking, all of us are part of it. --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics[edit]

Hi. Recently there was a hot debate on the article Dialects of the Macedonian language. According to me and a couple of other users it is utterly POVed and it causes endless edit-wars on other articles connected to it as well.. The reasoning behind the whole situation is that there is no article about Dialects of Bulgarian. As I'm not a linguistics, I can only ask someone who is actually an expert on the subject to try and create such an article. I know it might be too much and you might not wanna do it or don't have the time etc. It'd be no problem if you said no, I just had to ask someone. Cheers. --Laveol T 09:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, besides the time issue, I'm not particularly knowledgeable in Bulgarian dialects at all (I'm flattered that you somehow thought I could be an "expert on the subject", though). All I could try to do is sketch a brief resume of Stoykov's book [1], but articles based on a single source are frowned upon, as far as I remember.--Anonymous44 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Well, you looked pretty decent in linguistics to say the least judging from your edits. I'm certainly even less of an expert, I saw how you edited the Bulgarian language and thought you might be interested. The article is definitely a one that's needed. There are sources on google books etc, but that's as far as I can help :(. Sorry for the long delay - I had tons of issues to resolve and my reply here somehow got out of my mind. Oh, and don't think a refusal worries me - I simply had to try and ask you. Cheers :) --Laveol T 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) Maybe I'll do something next month, I dunno. --Anonymous44 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

BG grammar etc[edit]

Hello!

Like i said before, i like a lot of the edits you did to my additions, i need someone to trim some of the edges to my thinking! I'm writing you to say i put one of your additions to the Yat article into a footnote (June 17 - i've not erased anything) since, upon re-reading it, i found it was too much technical info all at once, and kind of lost the sense.

I have been considering recently, tho, to perhaps create an article in Wikibooks on Bulgarian Grammar (on various language grammars, in fact - i've not searched too much, but there don't seem to be grammar books in Wikibooks - we could set a precedent, perhaps?!), and link important points in Wikipedia articles such as BG Language, etc to the BG Language in Wikibooks... Yes, there are "...Language" and "... Grammar" articles in Wikipedia, but i feel that, as an encyclopedia, you have to draw a line somewhere, since the goal is imforming rather than preaching with too many facts and technical info, otherwise the reader gets confused - when all they wanted was some general bulletpoints. Then, if you ned to specify, you simoply do a link to the relevant subsection of the wikibooks article, that way you both keep the reader's interestand keep wikipedia nice and concise, And you dont end up repeating yourself too much (eg. the long tables in the Bulgarian nouns article should, i feel, be moved to wikibooks with cross-references), AND simply keep the important stuff where it needs to be.

What do you think?

Nic. 62.176.111.68 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ps. i did a search and found that actually, there are, such as this, which is like a phrasebook, but there is nothing on this page here, which is the style other grammars are done in, eg. de./ en.. So, how about it - it's a good cause...

I agree that writing such a thing in wikibooks could be a good idea. But the changes to Wikipedia that you propose, with links to wikibooks etc, are impossible, IMO - there is a certain modus operandi here, e.g. across all linguistic articles, and what you are describing is just not how it is done. Nor do I think it is necessary - for a "popularizing" approach, it's more practical to start another wiki.
I also absolutely disagree with your edit to my edit to what I gather was your edit. I don't think the real yat rule is too complicated - maybe it could be phrased better than I did, but the way you put it (root versus derivatives) is both WP:original research and, of course, just plain inaccurate (vyara - veren, no vyarna). Maybe the way you put it is easier to grasp, but simplifying things so much is not what is normally done on Wikipedia. It is considered normal to seek accuracy first, and accessibility only second. Maybe such a simplification (actually more of a change of perspective) could be good on wikibooks, certainly on other websites. Not here. Just compare any other description of a language or a separate linguistics article. Rightly or wrongly, we are trying to maintain a high standard here. And the assumption is that the readers of a linguistics article have some understanding of linguistics. --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As for Bulgarian nouns - I used to think that Wikipedia wasn't the place for detailed grammars, but compare Latin grammar, for example. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as "too much detail" here - details are typically moved to sub-pages rather than deleted.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The /je/ thing that I see you re-added is, well, not serious linguistically and there are just too many issues with it. You are saying that the Western yat reflex "partly" caused the absolute absence of /je/ in Western Bulgarian. To start with, that's not even true, because /je/ is present in many (perhaps most) Western Bulgarian dialects - for example it's the word for "is" just like in Serbian, [2], it can appear as a reflex of /le/ ([3]) etc.. Even if this wasn't so, your wording means you assume that the West Bulgarian reflex of yat would have been /je/ otherwise, even though we all know it's /ja/ and not /je/ in East Bulgarian (forget Croatia and Bosnia). This is just hypothesizing and again, WP:original research as far as I can tell. Even if that wasn't so, it's hard to see why the /je/s of completely different origin had to disappear because of the lack of a /je/ reflex of yat. And the very classification of Slavic languages into those that have a diphthong /je/ and those that don't, regardless of its origin, is not useful either scientifically or in terms of informing the public. I'll delete it again, and if you restore it, I'll [citation needed] it and then ask someone else to join the discussion instead of me, because I don't have much time for an edit conflict. --Anonymous44 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, that's no problem - i won't add it again cause you've justified yourself pretty well here - hadn't considered much of this stuff. Also, i like what you did with the "But" section on the conjunctions - i thought it pretty heavy myself (you should have seen my original draft, that i didn't even bother uploading - scheesh!), so it's good for someone with a fresh POV to edit it down.
You seem very well-read on BG grammar - i'm surprised you said you weren't too fluent on the "dialects" issue earlier to someone else - i think you'd be a pretty good asset to an eventual Dialects of Bulgarian or even a Bulgarian in Use (in wikipedia/wikibooks) article... 62.176.111.68 (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! You are very kind and I'm glad you have no hard feelings about this (I was afraid I had been too brusque, and nobody likes having any of their edits undone).
Most of your contributions are very good and useful, as far as I can tell. The reason why I feel uneasy about them is that it often seems that you are writing from personal experience or knowledge rather than based on secondary sources ((WP:original research). And the reason why this is not advisable is obvious from our disagreements above - one can often write something wrong without realizing it, just because there are always a lot of things one doesn't know. The problem is exacerbated when there is no competent or "well-read" editor that has the time to monitor all new contributions regarding linguistics, as is the case with Bulgarian language. So I'd like to appeal to your good will and ask you to be very careful with what you write - please, try to stick to things that you are sure are claimed in a reliable source (grammars etc), or that are absolutely clear and indisputable (you'll be surprised how few things there are of the latter kind). In other words, try to keep in mind Wikipedia's WP:NOR and WP:V policies, especially as there seem to be no other editors right now who have the time to view your contributions in that respect. I'd really like these articles to remain as accurate as possible, people have put in a lot of work in them. Best, --Anonymous44 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, glad to have sorted it - i was surprised, too, about the small number of people editing these articles, looking at the history pages.
now - don't be angry with me (and, i promise, i will leave it if you say no this time!) - how about re-adding the sentence somewhere - eg. in the Bulgarian alphabet article - amended once more to: "Standard literary Bulgarian is the only Slavic written language lacking the diphthong /je/ in its standard usage", or something similar (i have to tell you, i don't know myself why but for some reason i am very interested in this fact, hence why i wanted to add it somewhere. But don't you find it interesting that it is the only such "harder"-sounding language, because of this fact? eg. russian has e, ukrainian has є, czech has ě, any language that doesn't have a specific letter uses je... except bulgarian - in fact, it only exists in loanwords and is so rare that there is considerable debate over whether йе or ье is the correct spelling after a consonant! - i've seen books using both.) Looking forward to your reply :-) 62.176.111.68 (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is precisely the kind of situation where WP:V and WP:NOR come into effect. If you can find a scholarly book stating anything like this, then go ahead and cite it (preferably quote it). Otherwise - I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea. It is not "absolutely clear and indisputable", to quote myself above.
First of all, the "diphthong" part is debatable, because there is much vaciallation as to whether /je/ should be regarded as a diphthong in the various languages concerned - look at the Czech language article for example. It is often described as a consonant-vowel combination. Next, I don't think there is any linguistic concept such as "standard usage" of a diphthong across the Slavic languages - a "je" in a modern Slavic language can originate from anything (je, jě, ję...), and a Common Slavic "je" can develop into anything (je, ji, even o as in Russian and Ukrainian...). BTW, Czech ě is just /e/ + preceding palatalization, not a /je/, and the same applies to Bulgarian ье (as far as it exists). Next, I am just not familiar enough with all Slavic languages on Earth, particularly the rare ones (Polabian, Kashubian, the Sorbian ones) to make such sweeping statements about their history and phonology, and I don't think you are either. Sure, we can set out to check them one by one, but this would be a classic example of original research, and pretty pointless, too.
Apart from that - yes, it is an curious fact that we don't have /je/ where Proto-Slavic apparently had it. And I can understand your point about hardness/softness, it's intuitive from a Bulgarian point of view, but to me, it doesn't seem to make much sense linguistically. /j/ as in бълг., рус. ягода, рус. ехать is just a consonant or a semi-vowel and it has nothing to do, besides the orthography, with what "softness" generally refers to, namely palatalization of consonants (as in бълг. дядо, рус. дед). To me, Serbian sounds "harder" than Bulgarian overall, despite the presence of /je/. Just as Czech and especially Ukrainian sound "harder" in comparison with Russian, because palatalization is much less pervasive.
All in all, the disappearance of /je/ and of phonemic palatalization + /e/ is an interesting fact in the history of the Bulgarian language and it would be a good idea to add it to that article, if it can be sourced, dated etc.. In the phonology of modern Bulgarian, loanwords such as "йе-йе-йе!", Йерихон, Йена are perfectly legitimate, as you mentioned, so perhaps this detail would not be so suitable for the Bulgarian language article.--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That's cool - and nice one again on the History of BG article - hadn't even seen it until now! I see your point on the verifiability bit, it's true, for an encyclo it is needed. We'll continue to collaborate on these articles. 62.176.111.68 (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


"Llamids"[edit]

Hi, I just found your note on my talk page. Ilamid is meant to begin with a capital "i" - not a capital "l" - the font used in the Wikipedia is, indeed, very confusing and should be changed so that capital forms of the letters can be easily distinguished from each other. "Ilamid" is a reasonably common alternative way of writing "Elamite." See, for example, [4] or [5]. Hope that clears up any confusion. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Maltese again (sigh)[edit]

A new anon IP is introducing MagdelenaDiArcos edits to the Maltese article. I am trying to keep him at bay - maybe you could chip in?·Maunus·ƛ· 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away until today. I won't be able to spend much time on Wiki any time soon either. I'm glad to see 78.149.202.191 hasn't been able to have his way; then again, he should have been identified and blocked as one of the Magdelena Manchester IPs as well. Alas, it's a never-ending struggle, but I just can't afford to participate actively most of the time.--Anonymous44 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ebla[edit]

Thanks for all your clarifying and cleaning in Ebla - there's obviously very few experts on that topic. :) Brando130 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm flattered! I really am, or have been, something of a Sumer/ANE buff, but I had never been particularly interested in Ebla before I stumbled upon this section. Then I became curious and started digging for more info. One good thing about editing Wikipedia is that it makes you do research - often you learn much more about the issue than you actually write in the end.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Republican marriage[edit]

Can you provide a source for the proposition that it is debatable whether Republican marriage was ever actually ocurred? bd2412 T 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies, I see that you have done so. Nevertheless, leave it to the reader to balance these against the reported extent of the practice. bd2412 T 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Saturday[edit]

Hi there! As the inserter, could you please source the specific claim in vampire hunter (also copied to Saturday) that those born on Saturday are called sâbotnichav in Bulgarian and "Sabbatarians" in English? This was questioned by another esteemed editor, User:Blueboar. Presumably it's in one of the extant sources already cited. Thank you for your time! JJB 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Yes, the Bulgarian word was already in the Bulgarian-language source cited there, I have now copied the reference directly after the word. I have also added a reference for the English-language rendering of the term. Best, --Anonymous44 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bility (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know.[edit]

An anon IP has just posted on Kevorkmail's talk page. Asking him to revert "POV and distortions" to the Urartian language article.[6] Which, oddly, is quite similar to Phoenicians8 posting on Kevorkmail's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And on Moosh88's talk page as well.[7] --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I don't know how these users will react - I've left them notes in response, but there isn't much else I can do about that. If you agree with me on that article, I hope you will also weigh in if necessary.--Anonymous44 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
...for your rhetorical laser beam in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

reason for citation tags[edit]

Re. this,[8] yes, perhaps they didn't know that. But often we'll tag things we know are true because they're making an important claim that should be referenced. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if editor X knows that a fact is true, they should also be capable of supplying a source instead of putting the <expletive> tag (presumably they know it from somewhere). Given the common, nay predominant use of these tags to mark statements as ones that one personally doubts or finds uncertain, and given the fact that the tags are ugly and clutter the page, one really ought to refrain from placing them if one can find a source oneself. Also, I don't see why it should be necessary to have a source specified for each and every important claim, so long as it isn't contentious.--Anonymous44 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I found bias on your editing topic Acholi people[edit]

Ngunalik (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Hi You (Anonymous44) do not come from Acoli so what makes you think that you know their history better than the very people? Please could you stop removing work based on arrogant arguments. Even if they do not write so called Oxford English that dose not mean their accounts should be devalued. The man listed several journals and books at the end of his writing. Ngunalik (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The man has listed sources, but it doesn't become clear which sources, if any, support each of his specific claims. Even if he had done so, one would still have to access the sources directly rather than trust his text, since he himself is not a reliable source (and no, belonging to "the very people" does not automatically make one a reliable source about that people by Wikipedia's standards - or in the real world, for that matter). What's much worse, the author explicitly admits that his opinions are the "true" history as opposed to the "lies" that have been accepted in Ugandan education so far. On Wikipedia, articles are required observe the so-called neutral point of view by reflecting the range of opinions in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. In other words, Wikipedia expresses the mainstream view/views, not (fringe theories). If what you and the author call "lies" is the mainstream view, then Wikipedia must espouse it. The way this may apply here is also explained nicely in WP:RGW (bullet 3: Wikipedia is not the place to "Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community"). So far, you haven't shown that experts in the field of African history or religion accept your claim that the Acholi were Black Hebrews. Per the policy of verifiability, the burden of proof is on you to provide them, if you want your claim to stay in the article.
As for me personally being completely unrelated to the Acholi and Uganda, unlike you and/or the author, that is irrelevant. If anything, it suggests that I don't have any nationalistic or political agenda to bias my edits, whereas an Acholi author or editor may have one.--Anonymous44 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Ngunalik (talk) Hi I am glad that you mention range of opinion. You are writing about a people, it is their copyright, their story which is what you have to access in order to verify. I take the trouble to talk to the the people, record interviews from their stand point. There are sources which I have not uploaded, otherwise it is your own opinion to claim that the source by that man is unreliable. Who else has said that the source is unreliable? It is taught in Uganda education from primary to University that Luo people are Nilo Shemites. Nilotic just means people who dwell along the River Nile and there are many tribes who dwell along river Nile, some are called Nilo-Hamites. You could have a political agenda or bias based on your religion. I shall not be engaging anymore with you on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngunalik (talkcontribs) 19:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't respond on this talk page, respond on the talk page of the article.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Austronesian languages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Semantic role, Balinese and Applicative (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) 08:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)