User talk:Elohimgenius

g'day!

. Again, welcome! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality of "Moors"

The Neutrality is disputed. The article is left intact, save for that warning, which is used to further the dialog. It will stay, or further action will sought against those who delete it. This is more than fair. JBull12 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments on Talk:Talmud

Wondering why didn't you read the links at the very end of the article, disproving your exact cases. Talk:Talmud#TALMUD_RACISM.3F_Can_anyone_explain_this.3F

Epl18

"When the Talmud sees the Hebrew word Adam it sees an allusion to Adam of Genesis 1-5 who was at one time the only person. The Talmud understands this as referring to the Jewish people who are an organic unit like one person. Gentiles do not have this organic national bond with each other and are therefore excluded from this concept. If i'm not mistaken Adam being the first of God's creations was a man of dark skin. As it is racially put a Black Man.

If this is true then why are Jewish people of different (darker) skin color are called (Black) Jews or (Black) israelites and are not accepted as being the same even though history proves the original Hebrews to be of African decent? This in itself labeling a person as a (Black) Jew follows the definition of racism. If this is true that Gentiles do not have this organic national bond with each other and are therefore excluded from the above concept. What about original African Hebrews? Why are they not considered equal if they are the ones the religion is founded upon?"

Just to address some of your questions: Your first underlying assumption that Adam was "a Black Man" is extremely specious. How do you know this? Did you pick this up from an archeologist's speculation that man seems to have orignated from Africa?

Same thing with your second assumption that Jews originally from Africa are "not considered equal." Jewish Law doesn't distinguish between the skin color and racial origins of different Jews. If some Jews do, then that is attributable to other factors aside from Judaism. Any hypothetical distinction between groups of Jews in Jewish Law would be due to entirely unrelated factors.

In general, if you have questions about these things, Wikipedia isn't the most appropriate forum to raise them. If you have any points to raise about improving an article, then Wikipedia is the perfect forum. Hope you find what you're looking for. Cheers, HKT 09:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is much dispute among archaeologists about the supposed origins of man, and it is usually based on extrapolations from the evidence (often distant extrapolations), not the evidence itself. The Israelites indeed resided in Egypt at one point, but it is not largely accepted that they were originally from Africa. Anyway, this is a pretty tangential and irrelevant discussion.

"Those other factors would obviously be racism." Yes, indeed those factors would typically amount to racism. However, racism towards other Jews is not widespread (though, particularly in Israel, one sometimes finds regional cliquishness: e.g. the French, Russian, Ethiopian, Israeli, Anglo Jews often tend to associate with others of shared backgrounds). In any event, Jewish Law doesn't directly speak on racism at all (Jewish Law certainly doesn't distinguish between races) - but it does state that all Jews must treat each other with extraordinary familial love and that all converts to Judaism must be treated with extra sensitivity. (If you would like some specific sources for this, please let me know). Anyway, concerns that have been raised about whether groups from Africa claiming to be Jews can be consider Jews according to Jewish Law are based on legitimate issues concerning establishment of ancestry, etc, not racial discrimination. The same concerns would be raised if similar groups emerged from Denmark.

I already wrote [twice] that the Schottenstein Talmud is a good primary source of information in general. If you want book sources specifically addressing the alleged quotes that you pasted on the talk page, I don't know of any devoted to doing that. Someone mentioned to you a website addressing these claims [1]. This site belongs to Gil Student. I haven't looked into it yet, but I know that he is a good source of accurate information in general, and he usually documents his sources. If you further want to question him or ask him for sources, you can email him.

"These questions are asked to challenge articles posted." Challenges to Wikipedia articles that are not well grounded, are not appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages. Writing something like "It seems like ______ might be true" or "I saw this on website _____ (not known as a reliable source), is this true?" is not appropriate criticism of an article. If the issues are raised in a lengthy manner, it would probably violate Wikipedia's guideline to not disrupt Wikipedia. If you think something might need to be changed, do the research so you can present criticism that is valid according to Wikipedia's guidelines. HKT 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof; however, at this time, I'm afraid I can't approve you to use it. You are just shy of the 250 mark, and I don't see much "vandal fighting" in your user contributions. As VP is much more fast-paced than the old-fashioned RC monitoring, I'd like to recommend that you gain a little bit more experience dealing with vandalism before you use the tool. You might want to check out User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool and WP:POPUP, both of which I've found to be very useful tools in fighting vandalism and are open to anyone. Once you've gathered up a bit more experience, after a couple of weeks or so, please resubmit your name, if you're still interested. If you have any questions or disagree with me, please contact me on my talk page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tokey Hill Page

Rory, what needs to be cleaned up on the Tokey Hill page? Thanks--Gnosis 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs to be a little less POV. Try replacing some "soon, he..." with specific dates, and have less adjectives inflating him. Also, you need to provide a source for that picture, or it can be deleted in 7 days. --Rory0 96_(block) 16:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, because it's fair use, but you have to say where you actually got the image. If you scanned it, you have to say so on the image's page, if you got it yourself, you have to say so, etc. --Rory0 96_(block) 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Tokey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tokey.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature stamp problem

Hi, I noticed your question at Help talk:Contents. Customizing_your_signature and How to fix your signature might help. Often the problem is forgetting to tick "Raw signature" in your preferences. To make your signature you just do ~~~~ on the page.--Commander Keane 17:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasoid and Negroid

What are you talking about it? The article needed major changes because its quality was reduced. How dare you accuse me of vandalism when I am only trying to make these articles better? Look at what Mr. Sweet is trying to do. Hei s tryinbg to reshape all articles he thinks are politcally incorrect. I am all for keeping the info he provided but he can't just change everything around because of things.

Look at these articles now. They are a mess. I can easily accuse Mr. Sweet of vandalism because of his massive changes. Do you agree? Zachorious 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did leave a coment at the bottom of the page but it seems like it wasn't read. Also I did provide an article where it was still being used. I understand that they are not used as much anymore but they are still being used in feilds like forensic anthropology. These terms may not be used as a "race" anymore, although a new term called "cline" fits the description on what they really are. Zachorious 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)`[reply]

Race refers to skin color? I think most anthropologists even 50 years ago would agree that skin color is the least detirminent of "race". Caucasoids for example can be be the lightest brown to as dark as most negroids. The modern view of the 5 "races" puts skin color least.

Race does go further into facial features but yes they do overlap. Obviously there are Africans with some caucasoid features. This only shows the mixing that has gone on between different ethnic groups which is common throughout history. First of all how do we define "race". Race means many things. Some use it to describe a subspecies while others use it to describe a further division. And why do you think there being minute differences between the races will promote racism? This is what I am talking about. Just because there are differences between human physical features it doesn't mean it will lead to racism. Human phenotype varies from place to place and some phenotypes do get isolated in different places. This is common throughout the animal kingdom as well as in different domestic animal breeds. A great dane has a very different skull shape than a british bulldog despite belonging to the same subspecies. You canb call this "race", "breed", or "ethnicity". It really makes no difference.

I did state in the article that the 5 "races" can fit the description of a cline, which is difference in phenotype rather genotypes. Why was this deleted? Zachorious 02:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll cont. this discussion on the caucasoid talk page. Zachorious 02:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moors

Great job at the article. -- Szvest 19:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Memetic engineering

Hello. Sure, I've read Dawkins (and Dennett, Blackmore, Aunger, most of the defunct JoM, and about half of Distin's recent book so far). Memetics is an intriguing theory, and I've enjoyed following its scientific development over the past decade or so. "Memetic engineering," on the other hand, has not been effectively developed as a theory (let alone an applied science!) Can we have a meaningful theory of memetic engineering before we have a meaningful theory of memetics? The current memetic engineering article is a conglomeration of neologisms and untested (untestable?) hypotheses. I personally find it to be an interesting discussion, but the article does not adhere to WP:V or WP:NOR. --Vault 01:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense was taken! I'm glad to see someone is interested in developing the article. As I mentioned, I think the theory has heuristic value. Maybe I'll take a stab at cleaning it up when I have more time. There is already so much popular memetics pseudo-theory on the net, I thought I'd take a stand in the name of science. --Vault 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritania

Hi Elohimgenius, I noticed that you added an NPOV warning to the article on Mauritania. Can you outline your issues with this article so that they can be addressed? Regards, Rodney Boyd 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might interest you

Hey, I found this portrait of the Moorish ambassador to Queen Elizabeth. I originally saw it in my Othello playbook. It comes from this British educational site about Othello, and discusses all the old English views on Moors. Thought it might interest you. Here's the link: http://www.rsc.org.uk/othello/teachers/moors.html --JBull12 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moors

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Moors article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --HonztheBusDriver 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message: Has the author (Yvonne Clark) explicitly granted permission for this text to be released into the public domain under the GFDL? Although the text is mirrored on a number of sites, there is no such release of copyright on any page that I've come across. If she has released the text under the GFDL then you're free and clear, but she should still be cited in the article's bibliography. --HonztheBusDriver 13:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Joel rogers.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Joel rogers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.252 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Joel rogers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joel rogers.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.252 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian American classification problem

there's a war brewing over that section.--Dangerous-Boy 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Berberslunch.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Berberslunch.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhard T 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moors

I referred to the passage as gibberish because of the way it was written and the fact that it finished half-way through a sentence. It also contained many factual errors, such as the assertion that the meaning of "moor" as black has recently been dropped from dictionaries. All major dictionaries that I have consulted include this meaning. No one, I think, denies that the term "moor" has been used in many ways and that the population of north africa is and has been very diverse. As for "ancestry", that will tell us where peoples originated but not what they looked like at a particular time, since what matters is how "deep" in the past that ancestry is, and so how much their phenotype may have evolved since then. Paul B 11:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great-grandmother

Your great-grandma is from Morocco? I don't think that has anything to do with the issue - but, if it's genealogies that you think qualify people to make statements about the Moors, let me point out that I myself happen to be Algerian, and assure you that not a single Ethiopian has ever been so much as heard of in the area. - Mustafaa 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:American-Flag.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:American-Flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. —Bkell (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Moors1s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Moors1s.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Moor link on your userpage

Hi, the link you have about your Moorish ancestry points to Moor, which is a disambiguation page. The page about the group of people called the Moors is at Moors. I'd change it myself for you but that last user I did that for got mad. Thanks! Brad T. Cordeiro 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Moors.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Moors.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tokey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tokey.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 10:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi. Don't want to seem "out to getcha" but you need to come up with sourcing for the Gibran article. All you have really sourced is the Wu-Tang lawsuit (the newsletter counts for little as regards WP:BIO notability). Otherwise it comes across as a puff-piece for a non-notable designer and we don't do that here. The same for the claim in memetic engineering; I don't see his name in any of the sources there. Please source or I will have to remove the names from that article. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Gibran Burchett

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gibran Burchett, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibran Burchett. Thank you. Alfadog (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Benedict_the_moor.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Benedict_the_moor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moors

Hi. The article has changed a lot since the time you are presumably speaking of. Other editors including myself have since added many images, links, and actual sources which your revert completely did away with. The fact remains that you can't single-handedly remove the edits of a bunch of different editors just because the page isn't as it used to be -- the latter is to be expected. Now, if you can find a way of incorporating into the current version the material that you feel is essential, then please do that instead of completely undo/removing other editors' work without consensus. Best Regards, Causteau (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What gives? Well, for starters, you're removing reliable sources (1, 2, 3). And when you're not doing that, you're replacing them with Afrocentric ones. I believe I also made this clear in my edit summaries (1, 2). And Irene Marsha Silverblatt is only a "Eurocentrist" in your personal interpretation whereas Ivan Van Sertima is infamous for his Afrocentric views. Causteau (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear at this point that you are trying to insert your POV and original research into the Moors article. First, you remove reliable sources (1, 2, 3); then you replace them with Afrocentric ones; next, you reference a source -- Origin and Evolution of the Human Race by Albert Churchward -- which does not once mention Moors let alone their ethnicity, nor the "biased Westerners" you spoke of in your latest edit. Kindly stop with this disruptive, transparent charade. Causteau (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not mistaken since I have access to an online database which includes Albert Churchward's Origin and Evolution of the Human Race. And the book does not once mention Moors. This, in fact, is why you are unable to produce a page number citing which exact page in the book supports your assertion. And Afrocentric sources -- like the Ivan Van Sertima book you cited in this edit, and the Afrocentric "African Front" website you referenced in your latest diatribe -- most certainly are questionable sources. Per WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

You complain about non-existent "Eurocentrism", yet have no qualms whatsoever about including Afrocentric sources in the article. Gimme a break. Causteau (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL The book doesn't once mention Moors. That's pure original research on your part and you know it. This is why you are still and will forever more be unable to produce a page number supporting your assertion. I suggest you quit playing these silly games, and stop trying to deceive Wikipedia's readership. Causteau (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The book does need to mention Moors and explicitly because, believe it or not, Moors is what the Moors article is actually about -- not Berbers or Arabs. This is the only way the information can be rendered verifiable to the reading public. From WP:VER:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

And from WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.^[1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.^[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

What you are doing -- as your latest edit summary cleary shows: "reference provides proof of Western/Sub Suharan African Diaspora in North Africa where Moors are said to have been from which dispells the claims of the statement Moors were not Negroes" -- is attempting to discredit the sourced assertion that Moors were not blacks simply because there may have been some blacks present in North Africa, a conclusion that the Churchward source itself never reaches (to do that, it first needs to mention Moors!). This is known as synthesis and is a common form of original research. From WP:SYNTH:

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

All in all, it's a quite embarrassingly obvious bit of original research. Causteau (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general I have to echo causteau's criticism and note you have been edit waring and violating the 3RR. The phrase that seems to have you upset in the introduction perhaps can be reworded - I have not seen the actual work being cited, but inserting questionable POV edits is not the proper reaction. (collounsbury (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In reply to your note on my talk:

Well, first let's get down to neutral facts. Your edit was rather POV - at the same time I can see why the statement cited [that is the no Negro thing] would irritate. I think it is factually more on base than yours, but it is not 100%. It also seems to be of dubious relevance - "Moors" (a word with more than one meaning over time) shifting ethnic meaning is discussed later in the article and with more nuance. I would suggest we agree on moving the line into the ethnic discussion, and rendering the phrasing more balance. (collounsbury (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Adminhelp

{{adminhelp}}

You need to specify a question. Once you did so, restore the template to list it again. Regards So Why 22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello Elohimgenius. Wikipedia has a noticeboard to discuss possible violations of the Three-revert rule. There is a 3RR case here which complains about your editing of Moors. Though the case ended with no sanctions, I hope you will be more careful when you have a difference of opinion with other editors. If you wish to give your own opinion, you may add it to that report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Victor_I.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Victor_I.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Moorishchief.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Moorishchief.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Elohimgenius. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to cite sources.
^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

[1] When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to cite sources.

[2] When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

[1]

[2]