User talk:Kashmir2

Welcome!

Hello, Kashmir2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Deb 12:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson

Hi Kashmir2. Yesterday I marked the Suzanne Olsson with 'cleanup' and 'needs sources' tags; the reason I did that is because, as it's written now, the article doesn't really belong in the encyclopedia. You make considerable claims for Olsson's importance, but without sources for them it sounds like a personal advertisement. And I have to say, my own research has led me to doubt most of your assertions; though of course I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. - squibix 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuz Asaf

Hi. I reverted your changes to the Yuz Asaf article and wanted to explain to you why. First, please don't mark your changes as minor unless you are correcting a spelling, changing punctuation, etc. People get upset if a change you've marked as minor is actually adding or removing information!

However, the actual problems with your edit were these. Although you're obviously very convinced by what Olosson has written most people are not. The largest group who have beliefs about Yuz Asaf is the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement and it's therefore their beliefs that should predominate. Olosson has not convinced many people (at least yet) that she's right and so her beliefs shouldn't get that much space. I've added a sentence on what, as far as I can tell, seem to be her (and other people's) central argument. I hope that what I've written is accurate- feel free to correct it if I got something wrong. Finally, your edit also messed up the next paragrah- if there's a space at the start of a paragrah then the text doesn't get formatted or wrapped in the same way. It's usually a good idea to click on the Show Preview button first (I know when I don't I usually end up having to edit the page again!). I hope that this makes sense. If you've got any questions, feel free to leave a message on my Talk page! --G Rutter 10:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Hello Grutter and thank you for your advise and help. I was going to put up a new page with the information about the name "Yoz Asaf" because as it appears here it looks like an Ahmaddi claim and this is misleading. People studying the word should have more information than just what the Ahmadiis present. If I could, I would rewrite the entire article and make it "less" Ahmadii and more comparisons about the origins of the name itself. Thank you for your help editing my entries. I have to learn more how to do this correctly. Can I rewrite the entire page and submit it to you off-line for approval? It really is wrong information the way the subject is covered here. Thank you. OH! I went to your user page to leave these comments, but I haven't figured out how yet.

Thanks for your comment and your addition. I've shortened it to a sentence as, like I explained above, Olsson only holds a minority opinion on the matter. The Korea Times link was interesting, but as it's talking about 11th century documents doesn't really prove any link with Jesus/Yuz Asaf. To add a new section to a talk page, click on the + sign at the top (between the edit this page and history tags). Any more suggestions to improve the article are welcome! Why don't you add them as a new section to Talk:Yuz Asaf and then we can go through them together? --G Rutter 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions, Grutter. I will ask if Ms. Olsson will do this herself because she lived there (near Roza Bal). I think any more changes or suggestions for this page should come from her. I don't know how else to help. I'll just ask her to join.

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIALOGUE WITH HIGH ON A TREE_MOST RECENT POST APPEARS AT THE BOTTOM

Are you in any way related or affiliated with Suzanne Olsson? In that case, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I have the impression that you are advertising her new book in several articles where it does not belong. Regards, High on a tree 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello High on a tree...first, I think you should remove those comments on the page of suzanne olsson...second, you make it rather arbitrary and impossible to respond to you when you provide no email or other means of contact. I followed your link to Wikipedia Conflicts of Interest (thank you for providing same) and found this:

When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources.

I also noticed that on several pages where reference to Suzanne Olsson's book appears there also appear reference to 'The Lost Tomb' of Tialpot, a very recent film and documentary that has come under heavy criticism. Then there is mention of other books related to the topic. Can this also be construed as promotion?

Suzanne Olsson lived in Kashmir and did the research there for her book. In fact the irony is that, for example, on the Wikipedia page for 'Yuz Asaf' (and several others) someone has directly lifted the latest research data from her book and included it there withour giving her credit for her research. She covers a 'lost tomb' theory, plus a lot more. The book was just released as a new edition in February 2007. On one hand you worry that this author is being 'overly promoted'. You said it appears (to you) on pages that are not relevent. I beg to differ with you.

The book is new and covers many theories (Roza Bal,Jesus and Buddhism, survivng crucifixion, Jesus in India, Mother Mary and Magdalene in India, tomb in India, Yuz Asaf,Jews and Hinduism,archaeologic terrorism, cultural terrorism, et cetera) then certainly you and Wikipedia would want to see all these relevent pages updated to include the latest research material available...I am attempting to update all relevent pages to include her book among the many others mentioned..it is not promotion, it is updating..

It's your call High on a tree.... What would you suggest? How would you suggest this be approached? Because now it begins to appear that you have signaled her out in an unfair way by denying information and updates about her research to appear along with the others mentioned again and again at these relevent sites.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 September 2007

Hi Kashmir2, I got your message on my talk page without problems - posting on a user talk page like this is the usual way to communicate with other Wikipedians. (Sorry it took you so long to find out, maybe it should be featured more prominently on the help pages.) You can also use the "E-mail this user" link, however discussions about the contents of Wikipedia articles should be held in public, preferably on the talk pages of the articles in question. I will respond later to the other issues that you raised. Regards, High on a tree 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should remove those comments on the page of suzanne olsson - you ar e referring to the "references" and "factual accuracy tags"? On the article's talk page and in the deletion discussion, other users have raised doubts about several claims in the article, and now ist is nearly 21 months later and still no reliable sources have been provided.
If you have concerns that the editor who inserted the references to "The Lost Tomb" has violated Wikipedia:Conflict of interest too, or that the film might not satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then you are free to bring this up on the corresponding talk pages. (Don't make assumptions about my opinion about article parts that I didn't touch or sources I didn't mention - the nature of a wiki means that one can work on one part and leave others to other editors.)
I haven't had a look at the Yuz Asaf article. Generally, all statements in Wikipedia articles should have a source named, and if there is no reliable source, the statement should be removed.
You said it appears (to you) on pages that are not relevent. - For example, you added it to Template:Jesus (thus, to ca. 50 articles at once) and also it to Jesus - there is an incredibly vast literature about Jesus, why should this book be regarded as one of the central works of lasting importance which are selected in the literature section of that article? With regard to the more specialized articles that you mention, you still haven't answered the question that I posed in my edit comment: Why should this book be considered a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense)? Was it published in a well-known scientific publishing house? Have Olsson's results been peer-reviewed by established experts in this field, or been fact-checked by other respected institutions ? What was the impact of her research on the scientific community? It is really up to you to answer this question satisfactorily, and once this has been resolved, I will not object to mentioning her results in articles like Lost years of Jesus.

Regards, High on a tree 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO HIGH ON A TREE

Hello High on a tree....to answer the question that seems to trouble you most, what has been the response to the research of suzanne olsson? Let's start with Professor Fida Hassnain, who has made many public comments about her book and research conclusions, and some of these appear on the back cover and in the forward of ther previous book. Dr. Hassnain is author of over 30 books and poublications about Jesus in India and the tomb of Roza Bal. For credentials, he was head of the India Department of Antiquities for 30 years. That is much better validation from the scientific and archaeologic community than many other authors have included here at Wikipedia. Further endorsements have come from none other than the Eastern orthadox churches, who also contributed their reviews on the back cover of her book. She was also featured in a film about the tomb that is due to be released shortly (made by producer Paul Davids, this also appears on the back cover of her book) The head of the BJP party in India Governemnt has expressed a desire that books such as hers will lead people to Kashmir to investigate claims about the tomb further. Then there is an entire religion, The Ahmadiyya community that supports her efforts even though she is a Christian. Then we have the fact that she actually obtained permission to retrieve DNA from graves in two countries, and one of the projects was to be led by the famous head of Pakistan Archaeology and antiquities, Dr. Ahmed Dani (now retired).

Regarding the awards she received in the past, she was writing under her maiden name first, then a previous married name, which would take a lot of explaining if someone looked up awards given to 'Olsson'...further, two awards were given 'in-house' by the US Government when she was employeed with them...they would not be generally known to the public at large.

Now let's return to authors and books mentioned at various Wikipedia sites such as those with the word Jesus as part of their subject matter.

. In this genre about Jesus certain names will appear repeatedly on many Wikipedia pages. These inlcude Gene Matlock, Holger Kersten, Kwaja Nazir Ahmad, Fida Hassnain, James Tabor, James Gardner, Laurence Gardner, Margaret Starbird, Karen Armstrong, Nicholas Notovich, and many more. Many of these names have pages here. Why do you consider that they are NOT promoting their books but Olsson is? I fail to see why you disconnect at this point, especially since Olsson's workhas been endorsed by the scientific and religious community. Further, she had been elected Vice President of a website representing this theory and attracting a quarter million hits per day from around the world. I am refering to the 'Tomb of Jesus' website. She certianly has a large enough presence worldwide that promoting her book is not necessary, but protecting her research and including her views certainly is.

Two Wijipedia reviewers from last year, Squibbix and Grutter, added several links to Olsson's page (I notice some are now removed)that endorsed her book and research. That seems to have settled the issues to the satisfaction of all until yesterday when you first posted.

I hope we have cleared up whatever problems you had...I honestly cannot imagine what further "endorsements" you could possibly require of her, especially since I see that no such issues affect more questionable pages here..

Image copyright problem with Image:Sue2001.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sue2001.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Genealogy

The fact of the matter is that you are now regretting your past claim of being descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and you are now ashamed of it. As for everything else, that still falls under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

Wfgh66 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) The fact is that she never made that claim. What is your agenda Paul? It obcviously goes beyond editing at Wikipedia.[reply]

Here is the link to the claim on Olsson's website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060618031440/jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/GeneaologyA.html History of the Des Marets Family of Suzanne Olsson

Writing articles about ones' self for purposes of self-promotion is prohibited at Wikipedia and you have already indicated that you are Suzanne Olsson. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, my grandaughter made this page for me and was very proud of it. She has become very upset by your "agenda' and I have stepped in to stand upo for her against you. You ought to be ashamed of yourself doing bbattle with a child.Kashmir2 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

Please don't post in bold text, it reads like shouting. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I have nominated Suzanne Olsson for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Gail...delete the darn thing...but I'm sure Paul will find other ways to stalk and harrass... Doesn't it make you wonder why he felt compelled to remove supportive links and verifications, leaving us with a page that appears weak and has no support? What would compel a Wiki editor to do such things? PLease. Just delete it . Thank You.

The extensive revision of the Suzanne Olsson article was conducted by other editors yesterday. I have provided a link to the history of the Suzanne Olsson article on its Talk Page. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Jesus bloodline has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you consider the request to be unnecessary when there is not a single reliable source currently on the page? Even if the fact tags aren't needed, you shouldn't be blanking the templates at the top of the page without explanation. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you take the time to read the prior posts here, you will see that whatever reliable sources once appeared have been judiciously and malisciously removed, leaving a weak page with little substantiation. I vote the page be deleted immediately. If some here feel they have the right to edit, then so do I.

Let me try to explain. First, you need to sign your posts as it says below the edit window -- 4 'tildes'. Now -- you do seem to be involved in a bit of a vendetta -- I had no idea wfgh66 was Paul Smith. That explains a lot. He has no love for me, I assure you. But I am the one who deleted a lot of stuff yesterday. I'm not convinced that you understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia insists on WP:VERIFIABILITY, and this requires WP:Reliable Sources. Please read the bit about reliable sources carefully. Suzanne Olsson's website (your grandmother?) would be a reliable source only for what she says about her ideas. It is not a reliable source for any factual claims about her. Nor, for instance, is http://arimitchell.tripod.com/olsson which apparently is the source, more or less verbatim, for the original form of the Wikipedia article. (Nor are most of the links on Suzanne Olsson's website for that matter). Thus without verification, we can't say that Suzanne Olsson edited a magazine or had international headlines. I spent some time searching for verification for these and finding none, removed the claims. And you can't write "Her book contains new information about historical artifacts and documents most of which has never appeared in print before." unless you can find that in, say, an academic review. Your personal opinions and knowledge, and mine, shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. Now there's the bit about deleting the article. This is going through the AfD procedure right now, 'Articles for Deletion'. This may look like a vote but it isn't. Any editor can say what they think should be done, but only the reasons count, and a Wikipedia administrator will look at the reasons given and make a decision on those grounds. Personally I think it will be deleted because of lack of 'notability' (and that goes back to 'reliable sources'). Read WP:Notability carefully. Wikipedia takes being an encyclopedia more seriously than a lot of people realise. Doug Weller (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop removing the COI tag from the article. If you carry on doing so, you could be blocked for edit warring and disruption. You have now said several times that you would like the article deleted. It is currently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination), so please let the process carry forward, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Suzanne Olsson constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea what a COI tag is but I am permitted to edit below a certain point. This does not constiitute vandalsim.

It's the notice at the top of the article which alerts readers to a possible conflict of interest in the article's edit history. Please see WP:COI and please, stop removing the tag. You are very close to violating the three revert rule. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account for 72 hours, because you are persisting to undo changes made by others. I realise that you are very new to Wikipedia, however the warnings given above were intended to instruct you, yet you have disregarded them, just as was done when the article was locked the first time and you reported Harrassment by a Wiki Editor to me. Wfgh66 (talk · contribs) was also blocked that time because he was waging a war with you, however this time it is uninvolved users

Please realise that we have processes, and you need to become acquainted with them. The {{COI}} and {{fact}} tags that were placed on the article are part of our editing process, and should not be removed, especially by someone who has a conflict of interest.

Only if you promise to not edit the "Suzanne Olsson" page will I consider allowing you to edit again within this 72 hour period. During this period, you may respond here on your talk page, but editing elsewhere isnt possible. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir2 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Thank you John for stepping in here. To say that I am enraged by Wikipedia would be an understatement. First let me say that I am writing as myself, Suzanne Olsson, about whom all this controversy exists.My grandaughter, here using 'Kashmir2', made that page for me with no interference from me and was very proud of it. Some citations didn't seem necessary at all, such as asking for my college degree (where else is this done at Wiki?)When I gave her sources and links to articles and peer reviews, she included these. Now they all been removed over a gradual period of time by unknown persons. Peer reviews, news articles relating to my projects in several countries, all removed.The Wiki page has been left looking weak and unsubstantiated. Trying to keep up with demands and make the ammendments is far too time consuming now, and really quite pointless.[reply]

In one example, it was declared by one of your editors that no such paper as 'The Eagle' existed, a paper I was editor for.....yet it still exists as an in-house neswpaper for Government employees. hence the name 'The Eagle' (Gvnmt. symbol). This has gone on and on here. What is the point in my grandaughter or me tring to maintain pages and contribute what could be highly interesting and valuable contributions about the DNA projects if we are cut down and diminished at every turn?

I (and my grandaughter as Kashmir 2) are accused of "vandalizing" pages when in fact Wiki's own editors make assumtpions and change pages to create an atmosphere that supports their interpretations...often they are wrong as I proved several times. There is no vandalism going on here. There is an ongoing effort to protect the pages and my name from vandalsim by your own editors. Paul Smith is well known around the internet for disruptive behavior and has been barred repeatedly from forums and websites for his antagonisms and unpleasantness when entering discussionsmost recent that I am aware of was about a month ago. He has left hostile and demeaning articles at one of his websites about me since a year ago. Doesn't this tell you anything about his agenda when "editing" pages with my name on them here? Of course Kashmir2 have every right to ammend such changes that appear biased, untrue, misleading, and constitute more personal attacks and less science and reasoning. I defend her right to change the pages whenever she feels warrented. I believe its some editors here who are in error for vandalism and edit wars. Thank you for stepping in. As I stated earlier, I don't want my grandaughter subjected to this and would rather see her page removed. We really don't want or need the "publicity" and we certainly will never contribute to Wikipedia again. This has been a very dissapointing experience, especially since we once thought so highly of you and your staff. Thank you. Suzanne OlssonKashmir2 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently in the process of being reviewed for deletion, and editors are trying to make sense of what has happened to the article over its history. Wikipedia does require citations for every fact mentioned on pages, especially when it is a biography of a living person. These citations help us keep a biography accurate, and also act as a limiting factor - if a fact hasnt been mentioned in reliable media, then we presume it isnt appropriate for a biography of a living person.

Please keep in mind that nobody has the sustained right to edit Wikipedia; editors which do not conform to our policies and continually disregard our guidelines are banned from the site. I do not want you to stop editing Wikipedia; if fact I hope that I can give you a bit of guidance and restore your faith in the system, so that you can continue to edit Wikipedia. I have blocked your account only temporarily, and only because this account is continually changing the Suzanne Olsson page, removing the "tags" left by other editors. What you have been doing is sometimes called vandalism, but that is a harsh term for it - I understand you were trying to help, however you need to understand that those tags were there because the biography needs those citations. I have listed the writer/editor positions that were in the article here: Talk:Suzanne_Olsson#editor_positions ; it would be great if you could provide more details here in order to help us locate citations for these. For example, do you know the ISSN of "The Eagle" ? or the titles of the articles printed in New York Times and Reader's Digest? What is the name of the weekly centerfold of the New Jersey Herald ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir2 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Hello JOhn. I am trying to understand what you are asking me for. When I worked for the NY Times and attended NYU, I started out in the Marketing Division and contributed articles on a free-lance basis. I was also called upon to do PR releases for various actors and Broadway events. I was briefly married, hence name changed. then divorced and another name change (I often wrote under family name Demarest).I do not recall what name I published every article under, nor did I save them..that sounds 'weak' but I really had no interest in ego or furthering a writing career at the time. Iwas in Paris when the Six-Day War broke out, and after calling the Times in New York for assurances they were still accepting my articles, I flew to Tel Aviv next day and wrote several brief reports from there...I will call former office where I worked at the Government to see if they can get me the ISSN number of the 'Eagle'.[reply]

But at this point I doubt we will be continuing with Wikipedia. There is no way to protect ourselves from similar problems occuring in future (such as dleting positives and inserting negative links)

I will add this. I am sorry Paul Smith has taken it upon himself to personally hunt down and attempt to diminish every author he thinks is supporting 'Priory of Sion" and HBHG agendas...My work has always focused on the graves in India and much valuable research is slowly leaking out from very troubled and war-torn areas. It is the reason I nor anyone cannot make loud claims that could jepordize work being done in the midst of fundamentalists. I regret we have to end this way, but I feel strongly that it is best we exit Wikipedia and not run the risk of more of this in future. Thank you for your help and support in this matter. Kindest Best Wishes, Suzanne Kashmir2 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's 'own editors'

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Suzanne, you and Alexis are among 'Wikipedia's own editors', anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, there are no 'Wikipedia's own editors' in the sense I think you mean.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reread what you wrote, and should add the Wikipedia has a staff of about a dozen, mainly fund raisers and computer people. The people who do editing and administrating are volunteers, you are one of them. --Doug Weller (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir2 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Doug, thank you for explaining that to me. I was not aware of this and thought people like Paul and Lore had some special status here that I supposedly could not challenge. You explanation is all the more disturbing because it reinforces the fact that Paul is here acting with an unsavory agenda. For examle after realizing that anything positve had been removed from the page, all that remained was one link to a website administered by a "Jews for Jesus" fringe group (refiner's fire) whose founder made personal attacks based on non-existent email conversations between us. There has not been anything positive or encouraging left on the page my grandaughter made. It all points to the fact that this was done with deliberate and malicious intent.[reply]

Please tell me how fast can we remove the page? Today? I'm sure he'll look for other ways to insert my name elsewhere but I don't care. I really just want to get my grandaughter removed from this quickly. What an awful experience this has been for both of us at Wiki. Thank you. SuzanneKashmir2 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not normally "rush" deletions; they typically take 5 days.

If any editor uses Wikipedia to attack someone, especially a living person, they will be banned from Wikipedia. This article is now being reviewed by a lot more volunteers, so it is safe to say that if we keep it, there will be other editors keeping an eye on it to ensure undesirable edits do not slip in. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to say I've found it useful to find out that Wfgh66 is Paul Smith. Although I don't support Suzanne Olsson's ideas, or Gardner, or anything like that, I sympathise with what she's had to put up with and have reason to believe she is telling the truth about this. Suzanne, none of my deletions were made with malicious intent, they were made because the article didn't follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. But I do know what you are talking about from personal experience (and I hope this doesn't start a new flurry of emails from Paul Smith, if it does I shall know why -- Paul, if you read this, don't email me). Suzanne, I'll support the deletion of the article, you are probably wise to not want it. --Doug Weller (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir2 (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC) There are several reasons that alarms went off realizing Paul Smith was changing pages and inserting links of his choice. His choice of links, such as to someone making a personal attack, is wrong. It is not just Olsson's page this involves. Looking at the editing history of Paul Smith one can see years of such behavior. Take for example this post: " Paul Smith hacked at Bérenger Saunière by completely replacing the text, then blanked my user page and told me I needed to do some more reading. Apparently, he didn't like the way I described the Priory hoax. I'm trying to incorporate his edits back into my article with some language improvements. You might want to keep an eye on all the Priory pages. Gwimpey 01:37, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) ""(this appears on 'LoreMaster' talk page).[reply]

So way back in 2004 the same issues centered around Paul Smith. I reviewed other pages he has "edited" and have become even more alarmed. The pattern is quite evident. Suzanne OlssonKashmir2 (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Kashmir2 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)To John and Dug and Squbx and those who are helping me with my page, thank you. AlexisKashmir2 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Does the Date of Block Keep Changing?

Kashmir2 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Why does the date of the block on me keep changing to the next day ahead?Kashmir2 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson Delete Page-Thank You

Kashmir2 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)To all the hard working editors at Wiki who helped me delete the Suzanne Olsson page, Thank You. I hope I can make a new page some day and it will have all the citations and links you requested. But for now I did not add anything that John Vandenberg suggested because we really wanted the page deleted.Kashmir2 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that whoever has been deleting links to your book it's not me.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson

Her book can't be used as a reference on Wikipedia because of WP:SPS and because she failed her AfD [1]. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I am now (not earlier) deleting it when it is used as a reference, eg in Yuz Asaf - self-published books can't be used, but not only that, even if it wasn't self-published it would still not be a Reliable source. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."--Doug Weller (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Book Publishing

Kashmir2 (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Doug, Professor Fida Hassnain headed the India Department of History and Archives for 30 years. He has written nearly 100 articles and books. ALL of his books were self-published. He and Olsson have just finished publishing a joint venture book. I can probably find hundreds of book authors right here on Wikipedia who self published. You are making the wrong assumptions. Thank You.Kashmir2 (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Wikipedia has firm policies (not guidelines) on unpublished books. If you find any such on articles that are not about the author, feel free to remove them.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-created article Suzanne Olsson

I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion tag from the re-created article. However, there is a question as to the identity of the editor who re-created the article. Are you User:Katchu2? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not katchu2. If you will please check the ISP you will realize that.Kashmir2 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. Because there may be conflict of interest worries, do you know or are you in any way affiliated with User:Katchu2? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do know who that person is. He thought that my mother was given a real harsh and unfair experience here. He said he would make the page for her and see what happens next. AlexisKashmir2 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back. I should have typed 'grandmother' but my mother was calling me so I typed mother instead. Kashmir2 (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]