User talk:Kokiugwe

Welcome

Hello, Kokiugwe, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response...Help!

This is Donald N. Yates, the subject of this article, which was vandalized last year and reverted/restored on May 23. Now vandals are back, namely Dougweller and Parkwells, who have systematically changed or deleted nearly every word in the article beginning Feb. 24. They have removed references to my being Jewish and of Native American heritage. They say I graduated from college. Wow. They say I am a fringe writer and "diffusionist" (whatever that may be, nothing good). They claim I was born in Cedar Mountain, Georgia, which I was not. They claim I own a company in Scottsdale, Ariz. which I do not. Etc. etc.

I cannot undo all their mischief and request that someone look into it. I have printed the current version and sent this to my attorney as libellous and defamatory. I request that until the page is corrected it be removed. I had no problem with the page until Feb. 24. It was started by an editor who picked up one of my publications and put me into the Living Writers and other categories.

Here is the beginning of the edits by Dougweller and Parkwells.

(cur | prev) 17:35, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,468 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (→‎DNA studies: c/e) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:29, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,438 bytes) (-383)‎ . . (→‎Study of family history: delete unsourced material) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:37, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,821 bytes) (+632)‎ . . (→‎DNA studies: Explain one of fringe theories) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:31, 24 February 2013‎ Xqbot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,189 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (Robot: Adding missing tag) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:29, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,173 bytes) (+98)‎ . . (→‎Early life and education: Use standard headers) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:17, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,075 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (→‎Articles: c/e) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:17, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,082 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Articles: Have break between classical and later studies) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:16, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,077 bytes) (-231)‎ . . (→‎Articles: Delete commentary on journals) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:13, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,308 bytes) (+127)‎ . . (More copy editing - book titles, appropriate formatting - need secondary sources) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:11, 24 February 2013‎ Parkwells (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,181 bytes) (+110)‎ . . (Delete inappropriate categories) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:09, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,071 bytes) (+253)‎ . . (→‎Articles: magazine issue arguing for Middle Eastern origin of the Cherokee rather than Asian) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:03, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,818 bytes) (-85)‎ . . (→‎Articles: dl links to fringe magazine, many of whose articles push the pov that Asians, Africans or Europeans were responsible for the achievements of Native Americans) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:01, 24 February 2013‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,903 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (Dating maintenance tags: ^{[citation needed]}) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:41, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,884 bytes) (-339)‎ . . (→‎Books: more sales sites, note which are self-published) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:35, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,223 bytes) (-132)‎ . . (→‎Books: dl links to sales sites) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:31, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,355 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎Native American and Jewish Heritage: fact tag (needs a source independent of Yates) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:30, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,349 bytes) (-575)‎ . . (→‎Native American and Jewish Heritage: inappropriate to have a quote from a speech here (as well as unsourced)) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:28, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,924 bytes) (-808)‎ . . (→‎Native American and Jewish Heritage: remove an unsourced claim that would have to be confirmed by independent reliable sources) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:27, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,732 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (→‎Native American and Jewish Heritage: rewrite so it isn't stated as fact) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:23, 24 February 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,678 bytes) (-1,582)‎ . . (not sure this belongs anywhere, but certainly not in the lead) (undo)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Sorry, I have been freaking out. I have posted a complaint to the Living Authors page but do not know how Wikipedia works. All I know is an article about me was changed completely over the past few days. Completely. Its contents bear no relation to the previous contents. How can you help me?

As the subject of the article, the continued and repeated use and description of content as "libelous" can also be perceived as falling under the no legal threats umbrella, so I would recommend that you stop using that term.

Wikipedia's articles are always subject to being revised as material from reliable sources comes into play, and the subject of the article (as well as every other editor) has no right to declare an "official" version.

What can be done? It appears from what was in the article when I viewed it (although I did not do any independent searching for materials) that Yates probably does not meet the criteria for a stand alone article.

If through the WP:OTRS system, you can identify that you are Yates and that you wish to have the article deleted, we can go through the article for deletion process and if consensus is that "significant content" about Yates does not exist, the article would be deleted. In borderline cases, many editors support the subject of the article in the position that the article be deleted. BUT the article could not then be re-created in a version that does not portray Yates in a bad light - its deleted for good unless other significant material about the subject is published.

Is that a path that you would like to go down? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as an additional thing to think about, since the article has been in existance for a long time, there are lots of other copies of the article in Wikipedia mirrors on the web, deleting inappropriate material here will not necessarily remove it from the web. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you will tell me how to verify my identity I will proceed with asking for deletion of the article as it last stood. You're right, it has been around for 2 years or more and was fine until the last attacks (Feb. 24 on). I have no problem letting contributors edit information about me on Wikipedia as long as it is not inaccurate and defamatory or libelous. I have the same concerns about my publications, businesses, employers and educational institutions I have degrees from.

The basic process is outlined here: Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and one of the volunteers will be able to give you more advice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Yates. I replied to you WP:BLP/N, however I'm following up here as well. Basically, the revision of the article you liked was inappropriate for the reasons I outlined, and if there is any offending material in subsequent versions then they need to be also edited per our policy. So, what I'd suggest you do is look at other biographies and articles to see how we source information here (seeing as you are a scholar), and follow that same pattern. Your published works are not acceptable, and neither is any detail, no matter how trivial, about your personal or professional life, unless it can be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source. If you are notable enough for Wikipedia, you must be notable enough for other people to have written about you, so it should be no problem to find sources for everything. If you require additional help, please let me or any other editor know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not what I understood when they put the article up in the first place. All the more reason to delete everything in it. I never wanted to be written about in the first place. You have done nothing but add insult and ignorance to injury.

Who is "they" and why would "they" put up an article about you without your consent? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is go back to the first edits by ClaudeReigns and subsequent fixes by Wikipedians. No one asked my permission nor should they. But the article appeared as part of an initiative to have articles on notable people in underrepresented areas. I understood it appeared because of an article on DNA and ethnicity in the Appalachians or something about Elvis DNA. Who knows? The main thing is it was all unwelcome attention and I am no longer able to prevent sabotaging of the article and I really wish all this bungling would stop. I don't know about scholar. You are being too kind. Good luck with the red pen thing.

If this is part of an initiative with Wikipedia, we'd like to know about it certainly. I am not even questioning your notability under our guidelines, I just want you to understand why neither version was appropriate. If you wish, you can edit the article (since you have a conflict of interest but already edited anyway) following proper sourcing, and get it up to speed. We don't want you to go away, and we don't want to delete the article, we want to make it better and avoid any more problems. As for the other editors, we can ask them to wait until the article is in a proper state, and then have them voice their concerns (if any) so we can reach a consensus. However, if the article is correctly sourced and edited, then that shouldn't be a problem. It just has to conform to our guidelines. That's all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Donald Panther-Yates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Panther-Yates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Panther-Yates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the discussion for deletion. You may place your rationale there. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, or think I do. I will put back in the material in early (pre-Feb. 24) versions, which seemed to stand the test of time for two years, and pay attention to things being unsourced and the like. It may take me a few days. And it'll be in dribs and drabbles. This would be preferable to deleting it entirely but a lot of work.

You may to use a WP:SANDBOX such as User:Sandbox/Donald Panther-Yates as a workspace to draft the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I don't think I'll be participating in any more activities on Wikipedia and hope my article in Living Writers or Persons or wherever it was placed is permanently deleted, as I said on the Delete Donald Panther-Yates discussion.

Although I didn't add the bit about your company being based in Scottsdale, your website seems to confirm this[1] so your denial is confusing. Could you please explain this? Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of DNA Consultants

The article DNA Consultants has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article about a person company animal or organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Tucson Artifacts/Silverbell Crosses Proved to be Forgeries

The artifacts in question were never proved to be forgeries. They were never given the benefit of the doubt either. The main sources cited for proving them forgeries are Burgess and Feder. You could add Stephen Williams. None of these is an expert on the subject of Medieval Latin inscriptions, which the Tucson Artifacts are, if nothing else and at very least. The only qualified expert who has gone on record about their authenticity (and much more) is Donald N. Yates. Here are his credentials: Donald N. Yates is a native of Cedartown, Georgia and lives in Longmont, Colorado. He earned a Ph.D. in Classical Studies with an emphasis on Medieval Latin Language and Literature at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1979. He is a member of the Medieval Academy of America. He has taught at St. John's University, University of Notre Dame and University of New Mexico and has published a number of scholarly articles and books. He was a Member of the International Committee on Latin Paleography (Comité International de Paléographie), Paris, from 1978 to 1983. He studied ancient and medieval scripts, epigraphy and paleography under Berthe M. Marti, Daniel Sheerin, Christine I. Eder, Richard H. Rouse and Leonard M. Boyle, OP, Prefect of the Apostolic Vatican Library, among other leading figures in those disciplines. He worked at the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library in Collegeville, Minnesota, the world's largest repository of medieval texts on microfilm, before heading a team of experts at the Medieval Institute at Notre Dame, Indiana, where he led efforts to develop new standards adopted later internationally for cataloguing and describing Latin manuscripts and the varieties of script in which they were produced. A recent book of history is Old World Roots of the Cherokee: How DNA, Ancient Alphabets and Religion Explain the Origins of America’s Largest Indian Nation (McFarland 2012). Yates co-authored with Elizabeth Caldwell Hirschman The Early Jews and Muslims of England and Wales: A Genetic and Genealogical History (2014). For more information, visit www.donaldyates.com. (Donald N. Yates, Merchant Adventurer Kings of Rhoda: The Lost World of the Tucson Artifacts, 2nd corr. ed., Longmont: Panther's Lodge Publishers, 2018, ISBN: 1974677729, p. 309, United State Copyright Office Certificate of Registration TX 8-535-3 74. Nothing in this article on Wikipedia refers to Yates's work. The works it does refer to are not authoritative. They should not be referred to if opposite (and more accurate) points of view are omitted. This article is biased and inaccurate.