User talk:Inayity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

If it is not revisionist on Malcolm X, then it is White supremacy and abuse of policy on everything else. Democracy does not work on its own

Contents

Your edits[edit]

Hi Inayity, First for all thank you for actually editing Serer creation myth and Ndut initiation rite. I really value the views of editors who actually go through articles and edit them rather than just placing tags. So thanks for that. The more editors especially on African related articles (one of the most under represented) the better.

That said I have two issues I would like to bring to your attention. The first one is the Sundiata Keita article (also see talk page) under Religion section. I believe you split them up from my original edit which was linked to "the Battle of Kirina". That linkage was due to the claim advanced by certain scholars like Niane who tried to link the too. However, if you feel they can be separated no problem, but I think the first sentence under religion needs to be reworded, because it is trying to continue from previous section. Some rephrasing may be necessary, so I'll leave that with you. I have also removed the unsourced content regarding : Islam would go on to become the dominant religion of the region. I think that should go under Mali Empire (or even Mansa Musa if you want who was def a Muslim) if anything not under Sundiata.

My second and last point partains to the concern you have raised to this administrator [1] regarding undue weight of Serer related articles on African articles. As the one who authored some (not all) Serer related articles, can you please point me to these articles you take issue with? I think the admin in question also asked you a similar question. If you prefer you can answer on his talk page (or here) and I will respond here. Just one point, I think the computer server/language is also spelt Serer. Sometimes I do get that as well. Have a look at Serer people for different variations in spelling. I prefer Sereer or Seereer or even the the French spelling Sérère. Indeed many sources about these people are in French not English (Serer). Many English sources about these comes from French sources. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As explained to the admin I have not come across Serer in the abundance or frequency seen since jumping from article to article. One some pages it has double hatnotes, (see also). I searched Amazon (nothing), but as you stated I realized (after asking the admin) that it was French Spelling thing. I have no problem with the deletion of "dominant religion". I took issue with the one source, but have seen other article like Du Bois heavily dependent on one source, so clearly not an issue. But more diverse sources the better.--Inayity (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Meles Zenawi[edit]

Hi Inayity,

You made the following edit to the lede of the Meles Zenawi article. I was just wondering if you would agree that it is redundant with information already in there, and revert it? Here's what I mean: you added "curbing freedom of press" citing the ref to Blow to press freedom as Ethiopia convicts 24 of plotting rebellion The Guardian on the opposition and journalist arrests. Which is perfectly fine, by the way, however, the line already contains the following: "as well as anti-dissent." (Citations follow, removed here for brevity). To me, it would seem that curbing freedom of press falls under the anti-dissent aspect. So now we're basically saying the same thing twice. What I might suggest is leaving it as "anti-dissent" (which is broader than just freedom of the press), and add the guardian article as a third reference to that sentence. Unfortunately, due to a personal conflict, it would not be appropriate for me to make that edit, hence why I'm asking you to do it. Let me know if you have any questions.SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Saw your edits to the Muhammed Bello article that I had worked on and they were good. I also did the editing yesterday on his brother Abu Bakr Atiku. If you have any comments on that page, they would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for the edits! AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hikma (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) 11:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited African initiated church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tewahedo (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) 10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Federalist No. 10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Epstein (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) 11:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

advice[edit]

i suggest you not enter into discussions with baseless arguments as you did on spi case [2] & it doesnt matter how many years of experience you have on wikipedia or how long you have been tracking a user..the point is my edits have been stalked by these two individuals on various articles & how did my case become weak? when the sock and sock master is blocked for his behavior? Baboon43 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to including Midexpress as part of the conspiracy, it is clear the other guy was guilty. --Inayity (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Input[edit]

Hi Inayity. As one of the more active and knowledgeable contributors on the Horn of Africa articles, I was wondering if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at the Somalis in the United Kingdom article? An editor has added some material related to race that has been a bone of contention. Specifics can be found here. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have a look, looks well heavy. I def have first hand experiences with this, while i do not have any specialist credentials around this specific Somali issue to add content. Will peep and give a note. But there is a complex identity clash, but then again so is the clash between Caribbean ppl and Nigerians ppl in the UK.--Inayity (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Assistance requested for an RfC/U[edit]

Hi,

I would like to request your assistance with drafting an WP:RfC/U, at [3]

Thanks!

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, i read it, I am not experienced at filing these things, but If you publish it at the RfC, I will make comments and support some sort of action. But note they have ceased contributing to the article content, so maybe it will blow over. I think we might be seeing the last of her disruptions. --Inayity (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agenda?[edit]

You claimed that I have agenda? I have none. Btw-do you know how are Bulgarians in UK privileged compared to Japanese? I am looking for that information or possible studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionentity (talkcontribs) 12:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you were me would you not be suspicious?. Please see the talk page, sure I would like to know also, but that tiny need to find out about a non-English country in Europe does not mean the article fails World representation,.--Inayity (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tiny? Most European countries don't use English as their primary language. Ukraine has around 45 million citizens, Romania around 21 million, Poland 38 million, Czech Republic 10 million, Serbia 10 million and so on and on. In fact majority of white people aren't English dear Inayity.--Questionentity (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Just give them a source"[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Inayity. You have new messages at Marie Paradox's talk page.
Message added 19:43. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

an RfC you contributed to drafting has been posted[edit]

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that the RfC/U you assisted with drafting has been posted here. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Moors (moved to correct place by me)[edit]

Inayity, are you teaching me by way of trial and error? Or do you have a issue with the acuracy of information from U.S DEPARTMENT OF STATES activities in Morocco? Do you have a issue with historic docmentation from the Avalon Project? Do you have a issue with acurate history being shared? Why are you violating certain terms and conditions here on Wikipedia? Actualfactz (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New editor please spend time reading the rules of wiki, also test your edits out on a sandbox and not mess up entire articles with drivel. --Inayity (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Restore discussion for article on Amadu Amadu[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Amadu Amadu, has been moved twice since 15 February 2013 (to "Seku Amadu III" & "Amadu III of Masina"). A proposal has been made to move the article back to its original title. If you are interested in this discussion, please participate by going to the discussion page here, and adding your comments. Thank you.--A12n (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly cannot offer an opinion either way. I prefer what ever is more authentic to the African story. I know him as Aḥmad ibn Lobbo and all these names actually confuses me because i am saying who was who again?--Inayity (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Religion and Culture in Africa[edit]

You can refer to the book Oxford Handbook of Global Religion. In Chapter 52, Traditional African Religious Society the chapter start with: African traditional religion is inextricably linked to the culture of the African people. In Africa religion has been understood as an integral part of life in which every aspect was knit together into a coherent system of thought and action, giving significance and meaning and providing abiding and satisfying values. Religion, culture, politics, and society were part of a seamless whole and no part of it could stand on its own.DrLewisphd (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I didnt have that problem, the problem was the sentence (grammar) which was not 100% clear. it could have been read another way. see my edit notes --Inayity (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks, for this edit [4]. I did not look back far enough to see that there was a summary version of the article prior to the vandalized version. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It will be vandalized some more got keep an eye on it, or lock it. He was either really loved or really hated. --Inayity (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

Thanks for all of the constant watch on the Slavery in Africa page. About the recent dubious tag, what part of the claim do you find dubious. I'll try to resolve it to your satisfaction, but just wondered what you think needs more heft. Thanks. (watching here, so will respond in this thread) AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of this claim rest of the definition of chattel slavery. Which in itself is problematic. But also i have never seen such a claim before. And it is a pretty strong statement, which is very specific. One problem is it uses Sub-Saharan Africa as a barrier. This was not a historical barrier for African cultures movement. Is Ethiopia not in "Sub-Saharan' Africa, certainly Chattel slavery was there pre-Islam, and even probably pre-Christianity. There is far too much dubiousness in it. and i have looked around and cannot find any support from scholars on this point. and it is a pretty major statement to make. --Inayity (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding of what the claim is that is being made. The claim is: "there is little evidence of widespread chattel slavery being practiced in sub-Saharan Africa prior to the expansion of Islamic legal systems." The claim is not: there was no chattel slavery in sub-Saharan Africa. What the source says is: that we don't know about how chattel slavery (if it existed) in West and Central Africa operated prior to Islamic legal systems that created a legal order and (more importantly) historical evidence for scholars to say what chattel slavery was like in large parts of Africa. North Africa, the Nile Valley and some exceptions (like parts of East Africa) where historical evidence is slightly better than West, Central, and South Africa. The claim that chattel slavery didn't exist is certainly dubious, the claim that we have poor evidence to fully assess it seems much less so. I'm pretty sure that is supported in Volume II of Cambridge Slavery companion, but also is made in Miers and Kopytof, Fage, Lovejoy, the source mentioned (Alexander), Rodney (at the extreme), and a number of other sources. Either way, I reworded it to make the claim more precise, as always feel free to further fix it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The rewording is a lot better. Because slavery was so varied. And it is only with the coming of Islam that a "history" of much of the region is actually revealed. --Inayity (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent use of the quotation marks: "history" indeed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

History of slavery[edit]

Hi Inayity, please see Talk Page. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest[edit]

Now that it's more or less over (I think) it seems unlikely that I will be accused of WP:CAN for mentioning that an ArbCom case involving Apostle12 just wrapped up (again, sorta). As I recall, you contributed to drafting the ill-fated RfC/U, so I thought you may be interested to know this. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_politics. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--Inayity (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Göbekli Tepe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (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) 14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

ICC[edit]

Hi Inayity, first of all a general thanks for your commitment to improve the ICC article. But, please, there is a purpose in using templates, namely to have to edit only once when a factual change has consequences for a couple of articles. Therefore, it is not really sensible to copy the text of a template into the article's body because then editing the template does not any longer affect the article in question. So, in the future, please edit the template. The template for the "ICC member states" template, for example, can be found and edited under Template:ICC_member_states. For any further questions, just ask ... Best regards. --EBB (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed obvious error. --EBB (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Inayity, Hi. Do you know what is up with the International Criminal Court article and why we cannot edit it? I posted my comments on the TalkPage there and came here but am still uncertain as to what is going on and why... Regards... Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Language isolate[edit]

Hello, Inayity. I've commented on the talk page of Language isolate, regarding your recent edit there. 203.118.187.32 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arab slave trade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turks (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) 10:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Correcting Manning Marable's Malcolm X.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

LGBT[edit]

Hi! About this edit it has to do with the premise of the book. One of the book's main premises has to do with LGBT. I wouldn't add that to Malcolm X's article himself, but it has everything to do with the book in question. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

reply on talk page.--Inayity (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I did bring a "rationale" that you just ignored[edit]

it went beyond just you don't own...but if you bothered to read the whole thing, you would have seen...I said...

Of course it has a relation. They're both continental "centrisms". How is that totally irrelevant? It's not like I put "Germans in the Civil War" or something, that has nothing to do with anything, out of left field. But this here is a continental or regional "centrist" view article. Obviously there's relation. So I will not put up with front excuses that are not really valid, to cover your real reason for removing, which obviously is you just "don't like".

I mean, how exactly is there "no relation"?

There's Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism, and Asiocentrism. (Yes, such a thing does exist.)

You never bothered to address any of that, but simply edit-warred again, with nonsense excuses of your own, reverted, and removed the comment from your page. I'm done trying to reason with you, as you proved (I kinda knew it from the beginning actually) that you simply can't be reasoned with. There doesn't seem to be much of a point. You have uptight over-scrupulous NON-Wikipedia ideas and notions here.

Or look up what "See also" articles are allowed to be. They don't have to always 100% "directly related" to the main article, in the sense you're thinking. They can have some relation or commonality. It's whatever. I don't have time or patience for uptight nonsense or bullying disrespectful dishonest junk. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Use the talk page for your concerns, not my talk page. That is where others will engage and resolve this issue.--Inayity (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk response[edit]

hello....I responded to your comments on the Asiocentrism talk page. Please take a look here. Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reported[edit]

i mentioned you here, may go there to defend yourself. thank you--22 Male Cali (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to defend myself, seems it has blown back in your face. Also it can be traced. Re: User:Brinkidiom--Inayity (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for Islam in the United States[edit]

I've created a fork for the talk page to handle in-depth discussion on the images to go in this infobox. Please see Talk:Islam in the United States/Infobox and try it out. Invite anyone. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 21:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bajan Creole may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ;nyam: (Pronounced "ng-yam") or "Yamm--") which means to eat ravenously or greedily, as in, "Don't yamm- the food like that boy!" – In [[
  • net/news_ah/africaninfluenceonbarbados.html African Influences on Barbados, Trevor Marshall]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden[edit]

Hi Inayity. Per appropriate notification, there's a discussion here concerning the Matthew Bryden page (the Horn of Africa political analyst) that you as one of the main contributors to the Ethiopia & Horn-related articles are invited to join. Please also see this. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Left a reply here. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not experienced/familar enuff to grasp what is going on. or the rules surrounding my input. There is just a sea of text. I made a comment based upon what I was able to read. But might have put it in the wrong place. I am better able to offer fresh eyes once the dispute POint by point is made clear. and simple.--Inayity (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden#2[edit]

Hi Inayity. When you have the time, would you mind taking a look at the Matthew Bryden article? The CorporateM username has been removing material. Could you appraise the text to make sure everything is alright? Best, Middayexpress (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is hard for me since I am unaware of all the politics involved. Why not make a specific complaint about one of the more problematic changes (in brief) and then it would be easier for other users to understand the politics of the edits Corporate is engaging in. --Inayity (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I've left a reply on the t/p. Middayexpress (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Quranist claims[edit]

I responded to your findings over at Talk:Quranism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tutsi-Hima[edit]

Hi Inayity. Would you mind taking a look here? A new account has been insisting that the Tutsi-Hima are of Afro-Asiatic rather than Bantu origin. There's also quite a bit of broken formatting. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should just notify me because that is exactly what I am reading, I already read the blog. Will comment.--Inayity (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Essays[edit]

Hi Inayity. I wanted to bring to your attention several WP:NOTESSAYs, all on the same subject. The pages were largely pov, as I explain here, here and here. Would you mind adding them to your watchlist to make sure everything is okay? Best, Middayexpress (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ICP[edit]

Hi Inayity. Would you mind taking a looking here? A newly registered account seems to be raising old arguments that you'll perhaps in parts find familiar. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditional African religion[edit]

Hi Inayity. How do you feel about renaming the page to "Traditional African religions" (plural)? This would reflect the fact that there are multiple different faiths that were developed and are practiced on the continent. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, nice work there. Let me now if you need help with anything. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
U read my mind, I swear today I was thinking the same thing. (I will let you know)--Inayity (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
So if you know how to file a proposal to change names I am right behind you. From talk page someone just told me in ALL of Africa (yipe the 2nd largest continent with the most diverse genetic make up) all practice ONE BIG Native religion. (LOL)I hope there is an R.S for that. --Inayity (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
On the page for request moves it redirects to a old move from years back.--Inayity (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, just noticed it. The bot handles them automatically. Middayexpress (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Afro-Latin American[edit]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Afro-Latin American about whether to use a social or genetic-based interpretation for the population figures. As you have edited these figures in the past I'm letting you know in case you have something to add. Tobus (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never edit those figures, I took issue with the edit war over said figure. --Inayity (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fyi[edit]

Hi Inayity. There's a user on the Somali people page who has copied and pasted material on Bantu Christians from the Christianity in Somalia page. This is despite the fact that the hatnote at the top of the page explains that it is reserved for the Somali ethnic group alone. He has also been trying to add an image of Hirsi Ali to a section of the page reserved for everyday Somalis. I've explained to him that she is a controversial, disliked figure, and that other controversial figures were omitted as well, as per convention on other pages (e.g. at Syrian people). Would you mind having a look? Best, Middayexpress (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Somalian ethnic[edit]

I'll come to you directly.

Somalian ethnic group page is very one sided. No diversity in people and culture is shown at all. It's more of a one people one nation one religion type page. anything else gets erased. Which flies in the face of the no bias, fair and balanced articles approach. regards Szekszter (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Szekszter, take it to the article's talk page where others can see it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Re your latest Bushmen talk page comment, I already opened an WP:ANI discussion which you may or may not wish to participate in. HelenOnline 08:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This guy has been like this for YEARS! every remark is Stupid or Nonsense. And I risk saying on topics those who know, know he is not necessary learned in. --Inayity (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marques Brownlee". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- KeithbobTalk 17:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Net[edit]

Hi Inayity. A user added some material here on local internet connectivity that I believe is quite out-of-step with the current state of affairs. The situation on the ground has changed very rapidly, particulary in terms of technology. Would you please keep an eye on the page to make sure everything is ok? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ok--Inayity (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sindhi people[edit]

Hello Inayity, do you mind assisting me in the editing of the article on the Sindhi people? There has been wide spread anti-Muslim edits this past year and the last. These have largely been done by ips not actual accounts AcidSnow (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it, but it is outside of my own knowledge range.--Inayity (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Understood and same with me. It seems that these ips only add these things without consensus and are their only activities. AcidSnow (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Are are anti-Muslim website allowed to be used as references and sources for history and other things on Wikipedia? AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I def do not think so. EL do not have to be "balanced" or neutral but blatant Islamophobia is obviously of no use to Wiki readers. A racist EL for Storm front would be good on the Storm front page, but not on a page about Islam or Jews.--Inayity (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Understood, I ask this in response to Khabboos recent edit on Jayapala where he used another anti-Muslim website as a source for his edits. What should be done about this? AcidSnow (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This user Khabboos has continued to push his point of view and disruption by changing quotes on the Hindu Kush page. This is a violation and I am sure the user knows this since he has already been informed by other users. But to make sure I have inform the user that this is his last warning and he is risking being blocked. If this user continues what should I do? AcidSnow (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You always get editors like this, they come and go, or change their ways. It is because they have a passion and might not understand that Wikipedia does not allow us to express passion in that way. So state the rules in a concise way and hopefully they will read and grasp why certain edits are not allowed. (hopefully).--Inayity (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
*sigh*, user has failed to corroborate and has continued on editing other articles such Jayapala and Sindhis in India with a pov. He has ignored my warning and those of other editors. What should we do? AcidSnow (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voltaire may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Moors (again)[edit]

Is it just me, or does User:ShawntheGod seem _awfully_ familiar? There's an observation in WP:OWB about users whose first two edits are their own userpage and talkpage. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

i was laughing because it is so obvious I smiled. He forgot to log in and left his ip address then deleted it. i mean how many ppl in the world have such a specific POV, the thing i dont get does he think he can fool us?--Inayity (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest we open an SPA if they persist. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree, it got bad the other day we both went up for 3RR, and he has agreed to use talk page. But no point using talk page to then go and get what he wants. But to be honest I do not really understand the REAL issue and agenda. B.c it seems very small thing to fight over with such passion. --Inayity (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've had a poke at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_the_Moors_Article. Some of what he writes is rubbish, but are you sure that's a quote from Lane-Poole? It doesn't sound like the style of the book. Also, I can't help but agree that Van Sertima lacks credibility as a RS, I'm afraid. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I am very sure because I am reading the book location 60 there is no doubt. 100% sure and he goes on to discuss the historical Ethiopian and its origins. Van Seritima ref is tagged, and I think the discussion came up on the talk page. We can look for all the views that were presented.--Inayity (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Maybe another book by him? http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37223/37223-0.txt doesn't seem to contain that quote, or anything very like it. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me check something quickly.I think I see the problem, The introduction is by John Jackson version--Inayity (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That would make sense. Since you have it to hand, do you want to fix up the reference on the page? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
What is your suggestion, I just deleted it for now. The book has a introduction written by John Jackson and then a preface written by Richard Surrey. It was only your insistence that made me look to see what could be wrong then I realized at the end of the chapter was Jackson 1990. The publishers of this version have added it to the book. Shawn is a victim of his bad reputation. I didnt take him serious so I looked no further. --Inayity (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if Jackson's a reputable authority, replace it, but with the reference attributing it to the introduction. I also think the cite might move to a place in the article to which it more directly pertains - taken literally, it appeared to be justifying the idea that the Moors were medieval Muslims, which I think is one thing everyone does agree on. I assume what it's actually looking to join up with is the fact that many Moors were African. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

... and now we get a new editor (with a "Truth" name, never a good sign) whose first three edits are an alleged extract from Van Sertima. Call me Mr Suspicious, but I think someone's playing Silly Wossnames. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Learn "edit warring"[edit]

Wikipedia:Edit_warring refers to 3 edits, especially when you make 3 reverts in just 20 minutes. And Drmies said that the section should be instead backed with reliable sources. So i had it already. But itsmejudith reverted it back to tagged section. You are in middle and doesn't seem to be supported by any of these editors. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What you and another editor does is your business, you are the only editor putting back (against an objection you agreed to leave alone) those tags so just discuss your actions and not the mindset of another person unless you have some special powers you have not declared on Wiki. And maybe you should read the 3RR rule clearly. B/c I think reading as opposed to have such strong agenda edits across wikipedia would help your stay here. --Inayity (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Complaint[edit]

The complaint about the 3 reverts in over 24 hours has been deleted. We can discuss our problems with the Moors article on the talk page in a good ol' civil manner. I believe we should start clean though, that means deleting all topics on that talk page started by me and you. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

They might not allow you to delete it.(in hindsight) And both of us have been 3RR, so let us see how that goes.--Inayity (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I already deleted the complaint about you on the Admins noticeboard, too late for that. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It got put back, just say all parties have agreed to cease any further edit warring. --Inayity (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It has came to a withdraw, we can start our discussion clean on the Moors talk page. I would appreciate it if you delete your topics and I'll delete mine. I'll then make a new topic on the Moors talk page that is a fresh beginning. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
We cannot delete topics from talk page. As u can see they have been reverted--Inayity (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Who deletes topics from the talk page? It got reverted because I forgot to explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawntheGod (talkcontribs) 18:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to discuss the Moors article right now, but do later on. I'll make a new official topic on the talk page (Moors Information and Imagery) will be the title and we can discuss the article and edits from there. You can delete this section on your talk page after ya get this message. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If you are online right now, we can discuss the Moors article now. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think me and you can come to a consensus right now regarding the Moors article or very soon. This new editorial involves not removing any current pictures, getting rid of one source (the recent Afrocentric addition by Jackson), integrating some textual from another part to another section, and removing one part of text. I have just experimented in the sandbox and here is how the new article would look. I think we can come to a consensus on this, if you have a problem with this new proposed article, please let me know the specific reason. In all honesty, call this a compromise, it may not satisfy either of us completely, but this is the most reasonable solution in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
About this recent edit [5] it's quite clear the new source replaces Ivan and Ivan has been deemed unreliable for history by me and other editors. The new edit says basically the same thing Ivan said, but no longer is the source by Ivan needed or exact "West African" syntax. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Beta Israel[edit]

Hi Inayity. Just had a disturbing encounter with a user with strong opinions on the group and its "Jewishness". He seems to have problems with the Horn/Afro-Asiatic connection in general. If you haven't already, I highly recommend keeping an eye on the page. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Is this the Beta Israel page?--Inayity (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought so too, but having said that, the TP there doesn't seem to have been edited since 10th January; so wot gives. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked at his edit history I see no issues with the above stated problem. (confused).--Inayity (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It was on Commons, but pertained to wiki in general. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reporting the user[edit]

I have made a draft for this on my sandbox page. If theres anything you would like to add or change you can make these changes before I send it. AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This user has continued to become more frustrating, what should I do? He has begun to expand his edits on other pages. AcidSnow (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
File your request at the admin notice board for user conduct. I am not best at doing this so see the procedure and include all the evidence.--Inayity (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, my bad for sending it to the NPOV Noticeboard; I have no idea what I am doing, but will try to stop this user. Thank you for your help, AcidSnow (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it has fine been moved to the proper forum. If there's anything you would like to add please do so. AcidSnow (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
*sigh*, it appears that the my report has largely been ignored. What should I do? Sorry if I am irritating/annoying you. AcidSnow (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem, try and get an admin to get involved. This is the problem with Wikipedia b/c it does not have a lot of quality people. Sometimes you really cannot get movement on things b/c ppl are just not around or busy elsewhere. What that means is reporting ppl is hardwork and sometimes they can get away with nonsense. The quality of Wiki has gone down hill b/c the ip or un-constructive editor feeds off of these failures. check out Teahouse--Inayity (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man, I am just trying to avoid forum shopping. Thanks again, AcidSnow (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the wait continues. AcidSnow (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocks vs. Bans[edit]

We have thousands upon thousands of indefinitely blocked editors that do far worse than what this editor is being accused of. I am not defending this particular editor, and I am completely unfamiliar with them. I am defending the process we use to separate the "bad" (blocked) from the "really bad" (banned). We do not normally leap from a 36-hour edit-warring block to a full site ban unless there's a really good reason. Evidence of socking after an indefinite block would be just the sort of thing to start a good site ban discussion. Doc talk 11:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your argument 100%, I am very frustrated b/c I am coming across these kinds of editors more and more. And had they been the really wild crazied type they would actually be less of a problem--as we would block them and be done with it. Editors like Blade are far more complicated. --Inayity (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what grudge you got on me, Honestly. But Thanks for extending my page, Persecution of Traditional African Religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Nothing personal only where POV pushing is happening. Relax, WP:LISTEN and you would have fewer complaints. --Inayity (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you seek ban for a edit, which you had to revert finally yourself. That is what made me write so. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My main issue happened with the Tagging issue where you made me tired and refused to listen to my point. Over and over again about something minor and obvious. You had to win even when in error. It was not even anything to fight for. Or your nit pick over someone being a historian, come on now.--Inayity (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know, It was headache. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can update on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Site_ban_for_Bladesmulti? If possible, that what happened further. As this issue is really touchy right now. If you like. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, in Islam in Africa, what you thought about adding southern africa? Instead of south africa. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tihama[edit]

Hi Inayity. A user added some material to the Yemen page claiming that the historic field slaves in the area who cultivated date palms were from East Africa, insinuating elsewhere that they were Habesha specifically. He also asserted on his talk page that the descendants of these slaves are the Tihama and Al-Akhdam. I tried explaining to him that the slaves were actually Shanqella, and that genetics demonstrate this too. He simultaneously removed a paragraph on Axumite rule over the territory. Your input would be appreciated here. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tawassul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fitnah (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) 09:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Najahid/Sheba[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Middayexpress (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It was moved to AN. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Inayity. The discussion is over and the actual vote has begun. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You'll probably be interested in this. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivan van Sertima, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guyanese (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) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Andajara120000[edit]

Hi Inayity. Heads up here and a new sock of Andajara120000 [6]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just celebrating that he was gone. Brilliant.--Inayity (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Author links[edit]

Hello, Inayity.

For linking to authors in reference templates, just use the "authorlink" parameter, like this: [7]. SamEV (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I knew they had to be a cleaner way.--Inayity (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Malcom X[edit]

Hi there. I have made several hundred edits to this article over the last couple of years, so a lot of the current wording is mine, including the "though" which you changed to "while." I have no dog in this fight at all, but clearly it is a contentious issue for many. Can you explain to me why "while" is less revisionist than "though"? Honestly, they seem very similar to me and I would be happy with either. But I would like to understand the perceived nuances a bit better. Rumiton (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It is similar, I did not get back to the article because I think my remarks were less about the sentence and more about what seems to come up in the article "all that stuff Malcolm Said before Hajj is now irrelevant",--Inayity (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. That seems to be the objection that others have had, but they didn't seem able to express themselves cogently. The article makes the point several times: "Up until one week before his death, Malcolm X continued to publicly advocate that black people should achieve advancement "by any means necessary"." Is there anything specific you would like to see included to reinforce this? Obviously it will need to be well sourced. Rumiton (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I will pop over to the article and have a peep, I also wanted to include more ref from Jared Ball to balance out Manning.--Inayity (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fyi[edit]

Hi Inayity. Given your experience in such matters, would you mind weighing in on this discussion? An anonymous ip also popped up out of nowhere, which isn't exactly encouraging [8]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it sad and frustrating the kind of backwardness that goes on. We fought through Hell and High water to get rid of stupid names like Bushmen. And you got people saying it is okay to call human beings Bush people. As an African if someone tried calling me black I would knock them out!--Inayity (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

New RfC on Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees[edit]

I have just posted a new RfC on Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees. Given your previous involvement in the discussion of a related RfC there, you might want to comment on mine. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the addition you made to this section because the section was closed and so no further comment should be added. If you would like to place your comments in the RfC discussion that is still open above it, that would be appropriate. 99.192.66.175 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Just move it to the correct section. I really do not see much merit in the entire Rfc as it has little to do with an improvement. And really apart from the issue of identity, totally outside of my interest group.--Inayity (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

List[edit]

Hi Inayity. The RfC finally expired, and an administrator erroneously closed it in favor of the page move when there was clearly no consensus for it (five votes for the proposal vs. five votes against it). Despite this, one of the accounts that supported the move has attempted to edit the list in that direction. I've left a detailed explanation of the situation here. Your input there would be appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

List #2[edit]

Hi Inayity. Would you mind keeping an eye on the page? There's been some suspicious anon ip activity. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the Black Movie winners. I have to admit I find the change so stupid that it is below the dignity of serious intellectual contribution. (just being honest). How on Earth do you have "black" academy winners? What does "black" mean? So if there is something urgent I will come in but I find it too frustrating to engage in. I mean some of the arguments for the name change are just so backward it makes me wonder if this is 2014 or 1814.--Inayity (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I've started a formal move review of the RfC. Your input there would be appreciated. Whatever the outcome, I'll start drafting a proposal for a long overdue, dedicated WP:RACES policy. The new policy will gather in one place all of the various existing policy clauses on "race", as well as several new clauses. I'll link you first to the draft sub-page so that you may edit it yourself as needed before I formally submit it for evaluation. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at the page itself [9]? There's an anonymous ip that's attempting to capitalize on the bad close, even now that the RfC is officially under review. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
For my own political and ideological reasons I will welcome some clarity on Race. The Black people article is a mess as it is, the term is vague, and regressive. It should not contaminate the rest of the site. Keep me in the loop with the policy draft I actually thought something already existed already. When working on Islam in the United States there was a criteria that needed to be established to be included, and that meant clear notability as a Muslim and obviously an American. We touched on issues of identity and how people's identity could be used in compiling them as representatives of say "Muslim" or whatever. In short I think i can add something when you are ready.--Inayity (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it's up. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I will review--Inayity (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

POV editing[edit]

Hi Inayity. Perhaps you can help. This refers to the contibutions by user Stumink, no stranger to you.

  • 1. I could have dropped the editor a note, but I see now that this is a concerted effort on quite a wide range of subjects where the editor is displaying a blatant POV. I don't know what the procedures are to take this to ANI, so I am fisrt bouncing it off people I believe will make a fair judgment of this situation.
  • 2. The editor in question has been changing information (in most cases calling it "adjusting wording" in the edit summaries) on Angola, South Afria, anywhere where there was a Cold War conflict, changing to sanitise the image of the West and denigrating the other side, sometimes blatantly as here. Elsewhere, the editor has sought to delegitimise the Angolan government on various pages, by replacing it with MPLA every time; removing references to US involvement here, here; removing huge chunks of information without explanation here; removing mentions of the term apartheid on a number of pages, here, in general sanitising the SA government side here; has changed valuable information on a NZ treaty to improve the image of the settlers here; In efforts to sanitise, when unsure ("pretty sure", editor says in edit summary), editor removes information notheless, as [here, and here;
  • 3. What the editor does in relation to the Cold War, he/ she does in relation to Israel/ Palestinians
  • 4. The same goes for West versus Arabs/ Muslims, see here
  • 5. Same goes for Western vs indigenous peoples as here, and here
  • 6. Sock? From the consistency of the edits, as here, here, here, and the wording in the edit summaries, I have reason to suspect that the editor is the same as this IP.

I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say you will always get POV editors, most people on Wikipedia come with their politics it maybe be Pro-Zionism, Anti-Africa or like me Anti-Zionism anti-Imperialism, pro-native people. In this case you have documented is clearly an Agenda (but it is still within the acceptability of Wikipedia). The issue then is BALANCE. If enough quality editors are on an article editing per Wiki policy then POVs balances out. Now I have not looked at everything in detail, but I would seriously suggest use Reliable Sources and quote from RS is the only way to deal with the editor. I have argued about sanitizing of articles vs. POV language. Sometimes they remove words to sanitize reality (which is a form of censorship) so that "Killing Muslims" becomes "Against Muslims." (but what does the source say)? Or Native Americans were "accidentally" Killed (LOL) I am sure to some degree, but we know it was a Holocaust. So within the rules you must challenge them. Keep and Eye on them and keep a record of their edit history on these issues for the future.--Inayity (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are all my comments and responses to Inayity being deleted?[edit]

Are all my comments nowcensored by wikipedia? So, when Inayity falsely accuses me of any of my actions concerning the Juneteenth Wikipedia site I am not allowed to respond and receive an answer?

What is the talk page for?

National Juneteenth Holiday Chairman Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No user is required to leave other users' comments on their talk page except for a very few more-or-less official actions, see WP:UP#CMT for details. Comments left at an article talk page are, however, an entirely different matter and cannot be removed by another editor except when they are libel, personal details, violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies, or vandalism; see WP:TPO for details. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
just for the record an active long time discussion Talk:Juneteenth#National_Juneteenth_leader_responds--Inayity (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Juneteenth". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Domestication[edit]

Yes, I do know I do not have to delete it. And no, other users won't have the very same question because there is now a reference right there. It would in fact be quite silly of anyone now to ask who came up with the theory, with a reference taking them to JD. But that is besides the point. I did not quite phrase my question the way I wanted to (domestication, taming, breeding, habituation, etc) and rather then mislead any other users, I'd rather delete it for now. I still maintain that that definition is far too technical for the intro, which should be a broad statement reflecting different points of view from different branches of human knowledge. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Motorcycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (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) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cannibalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conflict. 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) 08:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi Inayity. As one of the main WikiProject Africa contributors, your input here would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the format is pretty confusing. You can leave your own take on the matter under the Views section at the bottom. You would then endorse that take by signing your name per usual with four tildas; you would also replace ExampleUsername in the sub-header with your username. Before doing this, I recommend having a look at the initial discussion on the Somali Armed Forces talk page for context. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be helpful if you could perhaps comment on my response as well. Could you please also sign your username in the section below where the code instructs to endorse your own post (the top half is meant to remain unsigned)? Note that the nature of the process is non-binding and informal and cannot impose/enforce involuntary sanctions; it's meant to help reach voluntary agreements. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A Fan[edit]

Hi! I'm a longtime Talk Page lurker & newer editor and just wanted to say I really admire a lot of your work here and aspire to its standards. I'm currently trying to get the lead of the "race" article to redefine it as a "sociopolitical construct" rather than a "system of classification," which implies some consensus regarding an ostensibly categorical, rather than continuous & fluid, variable . Be well & see you in the trenches! AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information about the fashion label does not belong in the article about the band; you were already asked not to add this information, and since you chose to remove that request from this page, you obviously saw it. Please don't change the article about the group to include the fashion label. If the designer is notable, create a new article about them. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from acting like some kind of police of Wikipedia. Your entire tone is nonsense. For one if you accuse someone of vandalism I should report you for uncivil behavior. If you do not like an edit that is for the talk page not my user page.--Inayity (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What I'm not seeing is sourcing for Ocacia the brand to show that it is notable. You have been here long enough to at least have some understanding of the importance of references and sources. Surely you must realise that your editing on this and the Ocacia page looked like classic spamming and promo (and not just to me: User:Bonadea also clearly thought so - hence the misunderstanding. If you are going to change an existing page to include extra information that appears to relate to something completely different, then reference and cite it properly to avoid misunderstandings like this. Mabalu (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Totally disagree. I revert so much spam on other pages. but b4 I do that I look at who is editing. Do you see my contributions to Wikipedia? Very easy to see. It is not an IP, it is not a new red editor. You have to think how that message you posted would offend. How can someone threaten me with being blocked. I have never been blocked and have edited some hot Israel-Palestinian topics. It is offensive. I probably been here longer than both of you. This is why the Wiki pillars exist and one of them is be civil. When you post that officious garbage on my page you get a reaction. You could have corrected me, without it!--Inayity (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Well like i said been here longer than you, 2004, I lost faith in Wikipedia (editors not Wikipedia) and stopped for a while and returned again recently on a 2nd tour. --Inayity (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

African Union & flag[edit]

Hi Inayity. Could you please proofread the Pan-Africanism page's African Union and Pan-African flag passages and make sure they're ok? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkish people[edit]

Do you mind adding in your thoughts on a RFC on the talkpage of the Turkish people article? It would be great if you could help assist in solving the dispute. AcidSnow (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

But i only see one editor discussing, because I do not know that much about Turkey I would have to see other opinions that object to weigh between the positions/arguments.--Inayity (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How to nominate article for deletion?[edit]

I'm talking about this one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology). It's hideous, but I'm new & don't know how. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ali Mazrui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swahili. 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) 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

African American[edit]

Hi Inayity. Would you mind sharing your insight here. WikiProject U.S. is already represented but not yet any of the main WikiProject Africa contributors (largely my fault; I posted to the Project page belatedly), so your thoughts would be appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

African American lead straw poll[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:African American#Straw poll. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that it makes it simple. --Inayity (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Racialism[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the racialism page! I undid two of your edits, and I wanted to explain why. You are correct that Morgan Freeman's views are not definitive on racialism, but the leading sentence makes clear that the point is the same view that is found in legal discourse also appears in popular culture (it is not just a legal view, but a perspective held by various persons in society, including public speakers who participate in public debate, such as television personalities). The cited transcript from a CNN show (a news channel) was only included to demonstrate clearly how people in society, rather than just litigants in legal cases, understand and debate about these concepts, as a matter of discourse analysis. It was not to claim that Morgan Freeman is an expert on racialism, but rather to illustrate how the same principles enshrined in law are reflected in popular culture and consumed by ordinary folks, too. I have no agenda on this particular matter. I hope you understand now how this illustration is relevant and of a piece with the citation to Chief Justice Robert's plurality opinion.

We edit according to the rationale of Wikipedia. Freeman is not an expert and his opinions are of no significance to this article. THis is an encyclopedia and does not need a transcript insert, keep discussion of article on article page per WP:TALK--Inayity (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Global warming[edit]

If you want to see a lead that is too long and complicated, have a look at Global warming. Grandma (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

ok--Inayity (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh My, TOO LONG! that is an understatement. --Inayity (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The page regulars all agree, too. I think we burnt out after >200KB of discussion on the opening paragraph. Glad to see some renewed interest! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think things are working well, now, over at Global warming. Several editors are contributing to the lead in positive ways. I'm not predicting how it will all evolve, but for now things are good there. I also think that the lead for Big Bang is shaping up well. Thanks for all your involvement! Grandma (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers I love it when Wikipedians come together. --Inayity (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Me too, so what other improvements do you suggest at the Global warming lead? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My intention is to get people to be critical of the LEAD, most LEADs are in very bad shape, especially with complex topics or articles such as MotorcycleCleopatra, Racism -- I fix leads. I think the lead is still over referenced in the last few paragraphs, and the ref are to things not disputed, controversial. or in need of more than one ref to clarify. Anyway the seasoned editors will figure it all out. Of to disturb another LEAD--Inayity (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, a professional boat-rocker unconcerned with the sweat labor of rescue operations. My least favorite type of editor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the good book says "By their fruit yeah shall know them" and I think my contributions to Wikipedia LEADS speak for themselves and I hear no one else complaining. A short list Racism, Big Bang, Meles Zenawi, Motorcycle, Afrocentrism, Race (human classification) on and on. Per the purpose of Wikipedia I think we are supposed to work together to peer review each other to make this place better. Better being KEY. Some form fan clubs around article, I --however--am not nostalgic. --Inayity (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Inayity, I think things are going fine, now, at Global warming. I think interested parties, and I consider myself to be one, appreciate getting this rolling. Cheers, Grandma (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The next thread[edit]

Hi... I hand out the FYI alert provided in the next thread to everyone who shows a strong interest in the climate pages I watch. Under the new system, it doesn't imply anything and merely conveys information.... I have even given the same FYI alert to myself several times. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DS alert climate (just FYI)[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning regarding your edits to Israel Lobby[edit]

This is your first revert since you removed content that was already there. This is your second revert after three minutes. This is your third revert within the same day.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only do you have a problem using the talk page you have a problem counting. My first edit is followed by 1 revert with reason. With Talk page support. Where is your talk page support for your revert? which is two, cuz you reverted my original 1. then you reverted my revert that is your no 2 (my only revert). Cant count so gud can you? In addition your revert is unsupported with an argument. clearly you are not familiar with Wikipedia or the talk page and how to read it--Inayity (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please respect 1RR and 3RR[edit]

Earlier today, you violated 1RR and 3RR on different pages. Please do not do so in the future unless you wish to be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I do not think on many pages on 1 page with a very problematic editor. As you can see from the pages in question I attempted to discuss and FAILED, I did not continue to edit war. I left it.--Inayity (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)--Inayity (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not a justification. I just blocked the other editor, mainly because they were clearly more disruptive than you were, but, by all rights, I should have blocked you as well. All it takes is a violation of WP:1RR, but you violated WP:3RR. I wouldn't be surprised if the blocked editor (who pointed this out to you, btw) doesn't raise a "not fair" fuss about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Inayity. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you. While everything at Wiki is a work in progress, the lead at Sun is much better now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken on Salafites[edit]

You said that Sunnism and Salafism are not mutually exclusive, but thats wrong. Firstly there are three definitions of Sunni; (a) tradition in general, (b) tradition of Muhammad, (c) what has historically been established through ijma as being the tradition of Muhammad, namely hanafi, maliki, zahiri, shafi'i and hanbali. All Muslims align themselves with the (b) definition. In other words, all Muslims view themselves as following the sunnah (tradition) of Muhammad. Similarly, when Salafis self-describe as Sunni they mean definition number two (b). Therefore, Salafism is a distinct sect of Islam. 92.25.95.249 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Which Great Islamic Scholar? Bilal Philips or Hamza Yusuf.? And Where in Qur'an and Hadith did you see the word Sunni Islam? --Inayity (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
According to classical and modern dictionaries. I'm speaking from a secular perspective. 92.25.95.249 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not think Islam is defined by "The Other" sorry. I think you mean according to people who have no idea what they are talking about. A "Secular" discussion about a theological issue? The same people that define Africans without asking Africans.So clearly I am not the one mistaken. --Inayity (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Then explain why this map lists Salafis as distinct from Ibadism, Sunnism, Shi'ism [10] ? 92.25.95.249 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It is that map that I am complaining about. I guess I should do a map and put a PhD in front of my name to and then say Look here is a map. Did you read the remarks at the bottom of the map? And does one person's map over-rule Islamic scholars? I think not. --Inayity (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sun (long lead)[edit]

Can you have a look at Sun? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. While everything at Wiki is a work in progress, the lead at Sun is much better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom (talkcontribs) 14:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
no problem, I made my last edits and left it to editors familiar with topic. I think there is enough discussion going in the right direction.

Religious antisemitism delete request[edit]

The entry you placed on Categories for Discussion requesting the deletion of Category:Religious antisemitism seems to have been malformed. I've tried to fix it but I couldn't find your rationale for wishing to delete this category. Could you please add it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Category:Religious antisemitism ? --GCarty (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

Your edits at Arab slave trade[edit]

The website Encyclopedia Brittanica is not a reliable source. The content there can be edited just like a wiki. Most of it's content is anyways locked and I can't find anywhere in the visible content how many number of people were enslaved by Arab slave traders. Therefore I am restoring my edits for now. Therefore I do not see what qualifies to it to be even used as a source at all. Only real scholarly sources should be used because you cannot just randomly pick up a website from the internet as they are usually unprofessional and aren't scholarly. Especially Arabslavetrade.com does not cite any original research and suffers from many spelling and grammar mistake throughout so it can't be used. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete Arabslave trade as it is does cite ref and is the criteria of wikipedia does not exclude such sources nor does it exclude Myjewishlearning. Notable has been satisfied. Nothing on Wikipedia says Scholarly sources, and yes they are full of mistakes also. Does the info on that page look random to you? As someone familar with the topics (per my user page) there is nothing random or about the cite, it is actually the most read site on the subject (outside of Wikipedia). And ironically after deleting that we are left with one or two African voices on the trade the affected them, hardly balance. Hardly makes the article better. Totally cuts out authentic sources and new historiographies. /--Inayity (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Wait a minute African voices? Are you using those sites because they describe how they felt about the slave trade? That is bias and non-NPOV. Since you yourself accept that your revert was biased I will remove it unless you can justify the inclusion of sources beyond that they are "African voices". It is clear the arabslavetrade.com source is biased. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is biased. esp White people writing about Islam and Slavery. Now how do we deal with bias? Biased to what? Wikipedia says we show WP:BALANCE. Please bring serious arguments to me and do not try simplistic straw man arguments about African Voice. No keep all the reference from Harvard and Jewish Encyclopedia. those kinds of people are not biased, they are the benchmark of neutrality unlike Black people. --Inayity (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you know about this (lead section clean up)?[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lead section cleanup

Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No I dont, Will look into it--Inayity (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Somali education[edit]

Hi Inayity. Would you weighing in here? As one of the main WikiProject Africa members, your knowledge in this area would be appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I will try, but it is a bit heavy and needs someone familiar with that kind of stuff. Although I am familiar with the general issue of African education in London (only).--Inayity (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yosef Ben-Jochannan[edit]

Thanks for your help here. Any chance you could point out to the new editor that if someone's birthplace is disputed that the infobox shouldn't have a birthplace stated as fact? I guess it could have both with (uncertain) or (disputed). Also, too many WP:ELs. By the way, are you aware that for this article WP:BLP runs for 2 years after his death? Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually did not know BLP ran for two years. Yes I did notice some issues with new edits and just assumed you guys would deal with it.--Inayity (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Also apologies, I should have said up to two years. See WP:BDP. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oldsettler[edit]

Lol [11] ;-D Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That was funny, I thought you were a guy, but everyone is calling you she. one always assumes editors are guys. apologize if i was wrong.--Inayity (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What's even funnier is that I never even told the dude anything about me, let alone my gender. Gotta give the guy points for imagination, though. lol Middayexpress (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Racial bias[edit]

Hi Inayity. You'll perhaps be interested in this. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Hi Inayity. Is there anyway I can send you an email? There is some sensitive info I'd like to forward you that I think you'll find very interesting. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But how incognito? unless you give me a link outside of this matrix and i reply--Inayity (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You can enable the function through your Preferences setting. It's all recorded through wiki. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion @ of Aug/2015[edit]

Your knowledge of the Anni Hindocha murder would be appreciated at the current discussion going on about it over at the "Reliable Sources" noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lane99 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up re Middayexpress[edit]

Hi. I didn't really understand your comment about this edit, that "if you want to discuss this with me on my page, trust me, I can show you". What did you want to show me? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Minority (in my case African editors) editors are in decline and pushed off by entrenched systemic institutional racism. Somehow our experience on Wikipedia is marginalized and explained away. Its all in my mind. But I have been here a while, and have discussed this issue with others (like me) and the number one issue they all have is the same. Its like let us pretend Wikipedia is perfect. Let us pretend race and race politics are non-existent. Rupert loup has systematically gone through wikipedia and deleted Alik Shahadah as a self-published source and an non-RS, and tried to delete the page also. But I guess what leading Arab newspapers think is also not important [12] yet not RS. --Inayity (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is systematic bias on Wikipedia and there is a need for more minority editors (and, notably, women). I don't see that that has to do with Middayexpress though. Middayexpress was topic banned for violating several Wikipedia policies. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you might be right on that one. I do even recall warning Middayexpress about some of the stuff they were doing. But i really understand the stress because when you are alone its not like you can ask someone who does not share your politics for support against problem editors. But Middayexpress and I did discuss the great issue of WP:BIAS and that is why I left. An article on African Slavery yet top ranked African independent sites are not allowed! WOW! --Inayity (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
African sources are great but just as with other sources, if they have a POV then that should be acknowledged. In the case of this issue, I'm sure a better source can be found, such as a peer-reviewed scholarly article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And I agree with that 100%--Inayity (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Rubbish computer. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rubbish computer 19:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you might find that dealing with agenda editors who are here to disrupt and in this case I have evidence is a problem. So another core principle is do not use Wikipedia for your agenda editing. --Inayity (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but you need to present this at WP:ANI rather than adding it to an AfD discussion. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Vrac (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Racism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Favonian (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no plans of appealing, but unlike masturbation, no one edit wars alone. --Inayity (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not really true. This isn't what happened here, but some edit wars are one editor against many, each of them reverting only once. Seriously, why the hell didn't you just go to RSN! Doug Weller (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Doug I am tired. I semi-retired because I am tired. My contributions across multiple themed articles and my willingness to listen are evidence of my history on this place. TIRED!--Inayity (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
RSN on a site with WP:BIAS? I was there and my rationale was countered with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you realize right or wrong are not what this thing is about. Not what happened here, the man is trying to delete Alik Shahadah page, so what happened here? --Inayity (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Slavery in contemporary Africa: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)