Jump to content

User talk:Omo Obatalá/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Omo Obatalá! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! MrBill3 (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

October 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Legends of Africa has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

False positive. Omo Obatalá (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Whether Elegguá or Eleguá...I don't know

I am Junn-junnNPR. Because you don't show me any evidence, so I don't know which is the majority , or common, in Latin America, Elegguá or Eleguá. Maybe both are OK, aren't they? If you correct the spelling of Elegguá to Eleguá, why don't you correct es.wiki page and pt.wiki page of Elegua. Please do that. And please leave references of your reasoning or your ground on the page. Then you are consistent and clear. --Junn-junnNPR (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, Eleguá is the most common way of spelling the Orichá's name in Latin America. I try to maintain consistency throughout the English Wikipedia regarding the Orishas (and my religion in general); when I have more time, I will do so with the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia as well. Omo Obatalá (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemoja, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Omo Obatalá (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Serial comma

THANK YOU, DEAR SOUL, for your use of the serial comma in Wikipedia! MaynardClark (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic religion

Why did you delete so much explicative content on Ethnic religion. I am reversing that because I see no reason (but possibly a religious agenda) in your removing that. MaynardClark (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Response(s) hereOmo Obatalá (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoodoo (folk magic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Omo Obatalá (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Afro-Bahamian
added a link pointing to Nassau
Mwari
added a link pointing to Ndebele people

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Omo Obatalá (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ghana

Just an FYI ... the content in that edit is being discussed at WP:ANI#Large group of socks/meatpuppets adding slavery content The source and information appears useful for some articles (particularly the articles specifically on slavery and the "Human rights in Ghana" type articles) - but the copy/paste of the content into several dozens of country articles by solicited meatpuppets is problematic. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I was unaware of the mass introduction of modern slavery to the various nation articles on my watchlist due to the different usernames. Ghana just so happened to be the one I looked into; I reverted my edit once I realized the spam pattern. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tsonga people

Please stop editing the Tsonga People page, you are an african american i doubt you know anything about my people — Preceding unsigned comment added by River1970 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWNER and WP:APR. Omo Obatalá (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Iyanifa Iyalawo

Aboru Aboye. Thank you for creating a separate page for Iyalawo. I would like to come to a consensus about Iyanifa initiations so that we don't continue to go back and forth. Iyalawo and Iyanifa are used interchangably and only distinguished by region using one term vs the other. The initiations are the same. At present, Ode Remo and the Lucumi lineages are the only ones who do not initiate Iyanifas. It is misleading to suggest that the title is not accepted on the African continent and in the Americas when it is only 2 or 3 lineages that do not accept it. If historical references are identified, then all of the countering references should also be included. If odus and interpretations are to be identified, then other odus and supporting interpretations should also be identified to offer a balanced perspective. Otherwise, they can be left out for the sake of peace. I am referring to the pages on Ifa, Orunmila, Iyalawo, and Babalawo. I also suggest that a separate page be written for Lucumi tradition to distinguish Lucumi from Traditional Ifa to avoid confusing people that they are the same with identical theologies. They are simular but have distinct histories, approaches,protocols, and initiations which should be respectfully identified. Iyalawo (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Iboru Iboya Ibochiche. You're welcome. Please do contribute to Iyalawo/Iyanifa however you feel is best. I personally prefer to keep Afro-American religious articles minimal and only cover the basics; Aleyo's do not need to know detailed information, especially if it's not documented/reliably sourced. I agree, either include both viewpoints with reliable sources or just leave out that section. I will check the articles you mentioned and for now I'll add a template so readers understand that it does not represent both viewpoints (to give some time for others to include sources). As for a separate article for Lucumí tradition, I would not simply because there are so many different traditions both in the Americas and Africa (which would also need to be created), it would be difficult for readers to understand the differences. If it's a subject that differs significantly, you can create a section/sub-section by using "== ==" / "=== ===". Omo Obatalá (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions of revert...

Ek'aro/Alafia Omo Obatala:
Why did you revert my changes to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrocreole (talk • contribs) 12:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Alaafia,
It appeared redundant. The article mentions enslaved Africans in the History section. Omo Obatalá (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Ek'aro/Alafia Omo Obatala:
Please realize, the History section is meant to elaborate on the information in the Introduction; and your reverted edit in the Introduction is simply incorrect!!! The French, Spanish, and Creoles of Color did not develop Voodoo in Louisiana!!! But, either way, redundancy is not an appropriate reason to hide the truth!! Please return the passage, therefore, to the previous version (with my edits)!! Modupe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrocreole (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about Animism sourcing

Just a general question here since you've been doing a good bit of cleanup on this article. What is your opinion about using Llewellyn as reference sourcing? Look at the tags on the references and you'll see what I mean. Trilobitealive (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Actually those tags are in the bibliography subsection. Sorry I was looking at the source code when I saw them. Trilobitealive (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I do not believe it is a WP:RS. Here it states: "Animism: More than the concept that all things—humans, other animals, all forms of vegetation, and even minerals, stones, and rocks—are alive and have a spirit or soul, animism is the belief that all things, animate and inanimate also have some degree of reason and the ability to act. Thus, the winds, streams, rocks, etc. have intelligence and can share their wisdom." I don't think that this is a general viewpoint regarding what Animists believe; perhaps some branches, but not an overview type of thing; it appears to be centered on Wiccan beliefs. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I didn't notice. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case I think I will venture to delete those two references. Trilobitealive (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Voodoo vs Vodou

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Caribbean shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Haz talk 18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The article you wikilink to spells it Voodoo, not Vodou. Therefore, for consistency, discussion should take place before changing a common spelling. The Haz talk 18:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect; check again. It is Haitian Vodou not "Haitian Voodoo". Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It was linked to Voodoo not Hatian Vodou, which is why it popped up as a misspelling. Reverted to Vodou. Thank you for clarification, but in the future you should mention why you made the change. The Haz talk 18:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was linked to Haitian Voodoo which is a redirect to the proper Haitian Vodou. I did mention the reason here. Anyways, thanks for cooperating. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS, needs TALK Page once reverted. PLEASE

Please review WP:RS and the process of searching for RS. Do not become a problem so early in your history on Wikipedia by edit warring what you are clearly not understanding. You do not just delete what you want and say read WP:RS I have read it, and what does it have to do with your rationale.? So we delete Al-Jazerra and say RS is failed,? Does not work like that. USE THE TALK PAGE. --Inayity (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

3RR: Which applies to you for WP:EDITWARRING An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. See below for exemptions. You can read this correct, yet you just reverted TWICE.
Next rule WP:TALK have you read this? Once reverted your next step is a discussion on the Talk Page, not to continue to remove stuff disputed. --Inayity (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I have read WP:RS. Clearly Al Jazeera (as with CNN, FOX, and other news media) is not a reliable source (you even say so yourself here). I don't understand what POV you are trying to have on Arab slave trade by referencing Al Jazeera... Normally I would use the talk page, but I figured it would be acceptable to remove a nonsense citation without a discussion on the talk page. If you feel strongly about keeping Al Jazeera as a source I will ask someone with authority and get their opinion. Omo Obatalá (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, your tone is rather uncivil, especially towards a new editor. I'm not looking to start problems, I'm just trying to improve the article. Omo Obatalá (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
YOur actions are a violation of Wikipedia rules. Can you show me where you discussed this with other editors. Do not tell someone here for 8 years to read WP: 3RR when you are edit warring. When you are reverted you discuss it with others and establish that point. YES, CNN is not a RS just because it is CNN. I have no idea why you are doing this, really I am a little disappointed. There are so few African editors and then you come and see that I have been editing this page from day dot and edit war with me. Why not discuss it. Then you must until it is resolved RESTORE the deletion. You are new, it is good to edit, but respect other editors. You do not push your version of what you like on any page when it is in dispute. Revert it and then use the talk page. Because it really spoils wiki and comes across as very arrogant. Check my edit history to see how I edit Wikipedia. And how a discussion is has by mature editors. --Inayity (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, now I realize that I violated WP:3RR, so I take responsibility for that. I did not discuss with other editors; I was being WP:BOLD. I did not know that you have been here for 8 years. That's one of the reasons why I decided to participate in Wikipedia because of all the Eurocentric dominance especially in Afro-related topics. It wasn't my intention to start an edit war with you. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
HAve you read Edit warring? So how are you improving the article by revert me and I have been here on these topics for Yonks. How do you think it looks to me when you delete content and say RS? That means anyone can delete whatever they want with only RS. And Then revert one of the main contributors to this page. You then come and revert me again, 2RR. And tell me to read RS. But You have to run a discussion to prove RS. If you get no objection then maybe it is cool., BuT i have objected and I have used the Talk Page unlike you. It is wrong and the Talk Page criteria says you are wrong, the edit warring and 3rr policy says you are wrong for what you did. --Inayity (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologize and take responsibility for violating WP:3RR. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
And do not even start to discuss POV. You came here and found Arab Slave Trade for the first time TODAY! Humility is a virtue. --Inayity (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching Arab slave trade for a month now on my watchlist. I already knew about the topic beforehand so don't tell me that I found it today. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
But you edited it recently. Did you not see I am one of the main contributors to these topics? Just practice respect esp on these petty issues. I would really think it odd that Wikipedia lacks diverse editors and I am so happy to see your African name working the pages and then you come and fight with me. I dont get it. I did not expect it actually. Esp when you see what That Al-Jazeerra article is saying. It is fighting for the African position! odd.--Inayity (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true, I did edit recently. No, I didn't notice that you are a main contributor. I apologize for being cocky... We shouldn't fight amongst each other, so I really am sorry for my behavior. I didn't even get to read the article at the time, I just noticed it was Al Jazeera so I removed it. I was just trying to follow WP:RS to ensure Afro topics are free of bias and unreliable sources. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

U better self revert

When You violate 3RR the best thing to do as a sign of good faith is to revert it. Or do you want a reputation for edit warring with long standing contributors over what? Al-Jazera Not a RS? Do you think that will hold up?--Inayity (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Inayity, you're being incredibly rude and condescending, that's no way to talk to a fellow editor. Remember to be civil and don't bite the newcomers. I Feel Tired (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!

Omo, you're doing a great job here on Wikipedia, thank you so much for all your contributions! I Feel Tired (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback! Omo Obatalá (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

you stupid?

Hey yuh stop editing my country u not dominican and u aint from deh so leave our country in peace (Personal attack removed) doe claim us we speak british english kweyol patwa patios island carib no french — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamwiki911 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 January 2015‎ (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Omo Obatalá (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

yuh a disgrace enuh move ...

Hey yuh stop editing my country u not dominican and u aint from deh so leave our country in peace (Personal attack removed) doe claim us we speak british english kweyol patwa patios island carib no french — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamwiki911 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 11 January 2015‎ (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Omo Obatalá (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Omo Obatalá. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brujería

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brujería, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. St★lwart111 14:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. St★lwart111 14:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. St★lwart111 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Habla Congo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

Edit-warring during a discussion can get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop turning the article into gibberish. Are you purposefully vandalizing it? Don't gut the article and blame it on me, just because you can't (or won't) word anything intelligibly. — kwami (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No vandalism is taking place. You are dictating what the article is going to mention and what it is not. From the perspective of an outsider reading the article, very little knowledge would be obtained from your revision, and you dare call my edits gibberish? You are the one introducing gibberish. I addressed your concerns, but yet you still revert. Makes no sense. Perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on what it is you are trying to do. You are an intelligent human, correct? Give me a list of the problems and I will address them on my talk page, and perhaps we can reach an agreement. Omo Obatalá (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of my edits are improving your wording, like "priests of Palo" to more normal "Palo priests". Part of it is not making claims that are not supported by our references. Specifically, the refs describe the speech of the priests. They are not clear whether Palero speech is all "habla Congo", or whether they are only "hablando Congo" when they speak Congo. When they speak Spanish, are they still speaking "Congo"? Maybe they are, but I'd appreciate a reference that this is the case. Instead, you gutted the article, ostensibly so I would understand it. That was childish, and is pretty close to vandalism. It certainly violates our editing policies. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I "gutted the article" as you say, because your concern was that the content wasn't cited. What happens when content isn't cited? It may be removed. I will address your concerns in my edit; please talk back here before reverting so we don't make the edit history disruptive. Omo Obatalá (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you being obtuse? The article was sourced. Your edits weren't. What happens when your edits aren't sourced? They're reverted. Except that you edit-war over them, and nearly have a temper-tantrum when I don't agree. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you being serious right now? Do you even comprehend what you are doing? You're talking in circles. You're adding tags to, according to you, your own sources. When I edit constructively, you object, and revert back to the same unintelligible revision of yours. No matter what I do, you refuse to allow my edits on the article. It's baffling. Omo Obatalá (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this referenced or not: Palero Speech/Habla Congo involves code-switching between Kongo-derived words and phrases; Bozal Spanish, the archaic Spanish creole of the Cuban slave plantations, or at least an imitation of it; and colloquial Cuban Spanish. Omo Obatalá (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mansa Musa

Would you be interested in commenting on the discussion on this talk page Musa I of Mali‎--Inayity (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy Regarding Iyalawo/Iyanifa

As agreed to on tha Iyalawo:Talk page, either BOTH sides of the controversy need to be addressed, or the subject of the Iyalawo will have to be removed entirely. I invited you to edit the controversy page to ensure both sides of the matter would be fairly addressed. Instead you deleted all references to the controversy. This is an obvious attempt at astroturfing your personal beliefs and is considered a disruptive edit. And your adding bogus Latin American versions of the word Iyalawo (Iyalao, etc.) is not appreciated. I will be asking for moderation, and if that fails I will be forced to request that the Iyalawo page to be deleted entirely. This is NOT a matter of one side or the other being represented. I appreciate that you have strong feelings regarding the subject, but Wikipedia is intended to be informative and neutral, not a personal forum to air personal viewpoints or to propagandize in favor of one side or the other. While we both would prefer the Iyalawo article to remain, it cannot if the controversy is not addressed. If you have issue with aspects of the controversy as written, please address them in the talk page and please include VALID sources (non-academic web pages and self-published books are not usually considered reliable sources). Thank you.Lozen8 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agreed that both sides be mentioned for neutrality. You do not choose which subject will be kept and which subject will not; you do not own any article here at Wikipedia. I have no "personal belief" on the matter. Please read WP:DISRUPTIVE before making claims. There are no "bogus" terms being included. I do not have strong feelings regarding the subject; Wikipedia is not censored, therefore we do not remove articles due to one editor's dislikes on the subject. It is your duty to find reliable sources if you wish to add the controversial section, and it must be neutral. You might want to familiarize yourself with key Wikipedia policies before editing, to avoid unconstructive behavior, as you did when you violated WP:3RR. Omo Obatalá (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adefunmi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaufort County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Omo Obatalá (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Iyalawo". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Iyalawo, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A kind note, and some...

Omo Obatalá, thank you for all your contributions; we need more editors with that same passion. However, with Cuban Vudú, I could not locate a source that phrases "La Regla de Arará" that way, which I think might be more appropriate as it is clearly more heavily used. A good comparison of the complete "opposite" with numerous sources is Dominican Vudú, which is used about the same or if not more used than Las 21 Divisiones. I cannot say the same about Cuban Vudú unfortunately. It was also not included in those sources given. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note. I chose Cuban Vudú as the common name to fall in line with Louisiana Voodoo, Haitian Vodou, Dominican Vudú, West African Vodun, etc. La Regla de Arará, Regla de Arará, and La Regla Arará are all Spanish variants. Are you suggesting to change the phrasing of La Regla de Arará? Omo Obatalá (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Really it should just be Arará with >>(La Regla de Arará) [in its description] and it can note its similarities (if not the same to the Rada and Vodou and if we can find at least one source to give the Cuban Vudú in the description at least; or the Vudu of Cuba etc.). The Arará page should be broken down into separate pages; Arará (music), and Arará (ethnicity) etc., most early pages were created like this. This is one of those cases were it had stayed in a bundle and was forgotten about. I actually didn't even realize there was an article on it until I saw you edit it. Its great to have all the Voodoos to fall in a common name, but it must be sourced and if I don't say it, it will arise at a later time and it might get butchered by another editor (or improved!). But, it's best if I tell you about it now. This source for example, just mentions it as "Arará de Cuba." [1] Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest Arará being a disambiguation page because as you mentioned there are multiple uses of the term Arará (similar to Lucumí). Sources on Afro-American religious topics are scarce, but I did manage to find this source using Vodú instead of the proper Vudú, but context definitely proves that the term is in use. Do you think that will be sufficient? Omo Obatalá (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeahhhhhh this is good! I also found these too [2] (Spanish) [3] (English). So here's the thing, the sound "Vodou" (VOH-DOO) was retained in Spanish spelling as "Vodú" in Cuba as it seems. I suppose the Dominicans adopted the New Orleans/American sound of the word. So finally, perhaps it is best if we have it as "Cuban Vodú," as the sources seem to be more numerous? It would make sense since it is directly influenced by Haitian Vodou. Arará as a disambiguous or Arará (disambiguous) is best IMO. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Perfect! Interesting; makes sense considering Hispaniola's French/Spanish history. Thanks for finding those sources. Omo Obatalá (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ribbon

I am truly honored Omo Obatalá, thank you! Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Omo Obatalá (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your signature

Hello Omo Obatalá. I stumbled across your signature, or lack thereof today. Your signature was confusing as you appear to use invisible characters, which does not clearly identify who left the message or comment. To ensure that your signature is in line with WP:SIGAPP, please change your signature to something that everyone can see and clearly establish you are the one leaving a comment. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 18:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,
I am using #FFFFFF in my signature, not invisible characters. WP:SIGAPP makes no mention of white colored signatures, and, to my understanding, it is not in violation of WP:SIG. The reason I use this color is because it helps me see using my customized dark background; if it is indeed in violation of policy, I will change it. Omo Obatalá (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Omo Obatalá; i agree with your point about SIGAPP, but i would note that it does say (in bold) "[y]our signature must not...cause inconvenience to...other editors", and i assure you that i, like Tiptoety above, find it confusing and inconvenient to see what appears to be a blank spot where a signature should be. Would it not be possible, against your dark background, to use green or amber? I seem to recall, in the olden days, using monitors with those colours against black, and they were very visible. Anyway, you might want to take on board the concerns raised here, Cheers, LindsayHello 04:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Tiptoety and Lindsay,
Is "Omo Obatalá" better? It's #CCCCCC (silver). Omo Obatalá (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, in mine opinion, slightly better, though still very difficult to see against the (default) background of monobook. If you have difficulty seeing your signature against your background, you might like to try a javascript that highlights your name wherever it appears on a page. You can see one available one in this diff from my monobook.js file. I believe that WP:SIG has directions on doing it, too, though i don't remember for certain. The result is that i can see my name (and therefore any comment i've made) immediately on any talk page or project page i visit. Useful; and it would allow you to change the colour of your signature to make it a little more user-friendly for others. Cheers, LindsayHello 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Bushinengue

Also from my side, welcome to Wikipedia. The edit you made in the languages section of Bushinengue, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. It´s, because your edit "In general, these languages are the result of créolisation involving primarily English, Spanish, and French.", is at first inaccurate and second it´s false information. None of these languages contain French and especially not Spanish. They are all English-based creole languages, just like Jamaican Patois, or Sranan tongo for example. And, if it is written, that they are English-based creole languages, then even the reader, who has not much knowledge about the languages of the Bushinengue can imagine on how these languages could sound. The only difference is, that though being primiraly a English based creole, the Saramaccan language has a high Lusophone influence, because 30% of its vocabulary comes from Portuguese, and 50% from English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrobreak (talk • contribs) 12:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any references? Until that is provided, we can't include it in the article per policy. Omo Obatalá (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Counter-question: Do you have any references for your statement?
But I can include my references, no problem. And you can simply watch the wikipedia sites of these languages: Ndyuka, Saramaccan, Aluku, Kwinti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrobreak (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't because I wasn't the one adding that content; it was introduced sometime before I even started editing that article. If you have a reliable source, then please do reference it. Omo Obatalá (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Religion topics

I agree with the idea of having the "Near Eastern" title parallel Indo-European, but might I suggest "Afro-Asiatic"...? Hamito-Semitic redirects to Afroasiatic languages, and Hamito-Semitic sounds more like Japhetic to my ears. Just a suggestion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Afro-Asiatic makes more sense and is a better choice. Thanks for the suggestion; I have changed Hamito-Semitic to Afro-Asiatic. Omo Obatalá (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Haitians

Hi, I am looking to network with other Haitians on Wikipedia. Please visit my page. Aliceba (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Reason for changes

Hi, i was just wondering why you removed the additional Orishas that i had written on the Orisha page? I've researched this topic thoroughly and i have adequate knowledge about the Orisha, so i think that i have credibility when it comes to editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurama 9tails (talk • contribs) 00:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
It was unsourced and included various non-Orisha spirits and even God. Omo Obatalá (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i would like to know once again why you removed my edits? I even included sources this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurama 9tails (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You know that you are not the only person that can add information to these pages, so i am really curious as to why you are the one who keeps removing others peoples edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurama 9tails (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS before adding sources. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the WP:RS and I still don't see what is wrong with my source. Obviously you have a reason for removing my source, so I would like to know from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurama 9tails (talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Explained some sourcing stuff on Kurama 9tails's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Further corrections made to Brian Morris (Biologist)

This site contained a notice that it required updating. This was done after 4 hours of work. A notice from RobinHood70 requested changes. These were then done today. What appears conforms to the rules of Wikipedia and is up-to-date. Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What? Omo Obatalá (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Invitation

A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Omo Obatalá,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Propose a separate Page for Lucumi

The Iyalawo page is getting more concerned with combating another religion's view of it than sharing information about Iyalawo. Iyalawo is not a Lucumi title. Lucumi is not traditional Ifa, therefore they need to be separate. Baptist don't comment on Catholics wikis about their differences... and neither should Lucumi comment on things that are not in their religion. There is an assumption that they have the right change or dictate what traditional practitioners do. Just because they don't like it doesn't mean they get to overwhelm the page with their views and exclude the valid information that is based in traditional Ifa. A page of their own would 1 clarify for people who are not familiar that they are different and 2 give them an opportunity to relay whatever information they would like on their tradition. Iyalawo (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Iyalawo

There isn't enough differences between African and Afro-American traditions to justify a completely separate article, let alone reliable sources to support it. It's best to keep the article at a stable revision and then discussions can be held on the talk page and whatever is agreed upon may be included in the article. I'll include some sourced information from your revision, though. Omo Obatalá (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes there is an if mediation is required then it is proposed. They are two separate religions with different practices, protocols, initiations, and titles. They themselves asked to be considered separate and distinct from Traditional Ifa and established a formal separation. Even Babalawos are initiated differently in Lucumi than Traditional. That is enough to have a separate page. Iyalawo (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Iyalawo
No, they're not. Mediation was previously denied. Also, we must go by reliable sources. I am trying to keep the article neutral so that it covers all aspects, not just the male/female POV or the African/Afro-American POV. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Santería is a separate religion from Ifá, if that's what you're asking. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I submitted a request with new information. http://eleda.org/obaoriatecouncil/ establishes that they are separate and distinct. They clarify separate history, protocols, titles...and that Nothing in traditional Ifa will be accepted in their religion. Reliable sources were given, books, Odu, and their own agreement. Just because you don't like it does not make it unreliable. The article is neutral if all of the controversy is taken of and they are allowed their own pages. They have titles that we don't have like Oriate... and we are not commenting on that since it does not have to do with traditional Ifa. Iyalawo (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Iyalawo
I don't know what we're disagreeing on. Please explain exactly what you're disagreeing with. It might also help to review WP:RS. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am disagreeing with Lucumi practitioners being able to comment and cloud the page with its tenants and not traditional Ifa which is what Iyalawos are a part of. They are not reliable sources for traditional Ifa. They can only speak for Lucumi. Iyalawo (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Iyalawo
Okay, I'm with you on that... Iyalawo is a title in Ifá, and some lineages support/deny it. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Further, Iyalawos have a history which is valid and should be able to be a part of its page. To take it out because someone doesn't like it is not a valid reason. I am assuming that none of you are Iyanifas and therefore would only have a limited view of the history. Each line I wrote was document with a valid source. I gave the book, page number, and direct quotes. Odu is a source just as the Bible is a source in Christian wikis. Baptist don't comment on Catholic wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyalawo (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I know, that's why I'm trying to maintain neutrality on the article so that androcentrism doesn't takeover the article. I'm in full support and respect for all lineages and traditions, regardless of my own lineage. Neutrality is one of my core values. Omo Obatalá (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing bias about presenting the history of Iyalawos with valid published sources. The controversy information should be removed all together. There is no controversy in traditional Ifa. Ile Ife is not fighting Osogbo. Igbo Ifa is not fighting Yoruba about women practicing Ifa. Benin or Edo are not in controversy with Togo about Women being initiated into Ifa. All countries and ethnic groups initiate women into Ifa. There are only 2 towns out of thousands in Nigeria that don't initiate women and they have a history of doing so as well. The only bias is those that don't practice it in their own religion.. not in traditional Ifa. Iyalawo (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Iyalawo
We need to come to an understanding about this. Going back and forth is not going to change anything. The article is unbias and neutral without the controversy and with the history. Only the facts remain. But I will continue to seek mediation if we can't come to an agreement. This affects women in the tradition worldwide. I will not allow it to be vandalized by people who disagree with the tenets of traditional Ifa. And at this point. It is vandalizing the page by clouding it with bias opinions of other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyalawo (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any disagreement. I'm simply introducing your improvements and rewording/cleaning up. That's why I suggested that you introduce the content on the talk page first so that we can improve the content before adding it to the article. I'm just as supportive as you are... I'm not trying to bury the importance and significance of the priestesshood at all, but Wikipedia does have standards and policies that we need to abide by. Omo Obatalá (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Note

When I imposed page protection on our Iyalawo article, that was not an expression that I support your version over that of other editors. I imposed page protection because edit wars suck, and are not allowed.

In 6 days, that page protection will expire. By that time, I expect you and Lozen8 and whoever else to have worked things out on the talk page. DS (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I thanked you for protecting the article. Thanks again. Omo Obatalá (talk) 10:42 pm, Today (UTC−4)

your sig

Could you consider changing your signature? Blanking your user name is rather confusing thing to do in general. I first saw it in your signature for an IP user you welcomed and such a signature would be especially confusing for new users. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just changed my signature from #FFFFFF to #F9F9F9. Omo Obatalá (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omo_Obatalá/Archive_1&oldid=1136156111"