Welcome!

Hello, Virginal6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2009 (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) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Please restore Iberian-Canarian scripts page:not a single argument to remove it

(cross posting)Upon closer examination, I see no basis for your accusation that Trigaranus has a conflict of interest in this matter. Continued unfounded accusations aredisruptive and I request that you back up such claims with evidence such as diffs.
The article itself was deleted following a consensus formed at a deletion discussion. I have reviewed my close and find it satisfactory. If you are unsatisfied with this, you may appeal the deletion by following the process at [WP:DRV]]. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask at my talkpage. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dumu (cross-answer copy from my talk page)

Certainly sweet of you to pop by here. My guess is that he's in Spain somewhere...! ;-) He's got a talk page as well, you'll find it by following his signature (e.g. a little above this on my talk page). Good luck! Trigaranus (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions pdf

Hello, Virginal6. You have new messages at Jayvdb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

== I ACCUSE == (not by (Emile Zola)

User:Dumu Eduba and User:Trigaranus are accusing myself of a false identity.I do not know if this is ethic or not,but they are diverting the attention from the fact that both of them have managed to close Iberian-Guanche inscriptions page without a single objective evidence against.Please,do work constructively--Virginal6 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted here a copy of the answer I have given in User:Dumu Eduba page,

"I am not Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.Apparently, User:Iberomesornix is not either.You should try to raise proofs t o raise proofs that "Iberian-Guanche inscriptions" do not exist and not going to "discover" who wrote a true information which is now being reviewed.Somebody will acusse you both of being the same person.Please,do something constructive".--Virginal6 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's okay to speculate about identities, but before accusing someone, we should run check-user. kwami (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Annoying Identity Dance (and a word from the wise)

Listen, Virginal, all I know is that somebody who apparently was hugely in favour of keeping the article went and created not one, but three (!), sockpuppet accounts to "vote" instead of argue against the closing of that page (user:UrkoB, user:Elorza, user:Askatu). So somebody really has to be fond of the sockpuppetry business. I don't know if that was you or the Ibero chap, but in the end I can't really see who else would be so enthusiastic about a half-baked theory such as this as to go and try to cheat this badly in a discussion. Oddly enough, I only started to wonder about pretend identities long after Iberomesornix had accused me of being User:Dumu Eduba's sockpuppet and after the other "three" had done their voting. Besides that, the only reason why I think Mr. Allonso-Villena might be active himself is User:194.224.111.165 who referred to the selfsame gentleman as "myself" and also edits Iberomesornix' personal page. The fact that you, yourself didn't sign quite a few of your edits, but put Antonio Arnaiz-Villena at a signature's place does not really help clarify the issue now, does it? (Btw: apart from a shared, equally narrow focus on a very limited range of topics and a perfectly indistinguishable English, you two chaps are also the only ones I've ever seen using Caps Lock for headlines quite so often.) So, I don't know if I really have to feel bad if the idea has indeed crossed my mind. It's not the only mind it has crossed (cf. arbitrators).

Anyways, petty-minded harping on about masquerading aside, I have something that you will perhaps find interesting, too: an e-mail I just received from H.J. Ulbrich of the Institutum Canarium, who probably was the most prominent proponent of an Iberian script thesis at one point. I'm going to give you the original text along with a translation into English (the gentleman wrote in German). It didn't help change my opinion that the Iberian-Guanche theory is too far on the fringe to give it it's own article outside Arnaiz-Villena's own page:

Die Idee eines "Iberian Guanche" und seine pseudowissenschaftliche (oberflächliche) Untermauerung durch Arnaiz-Villena et.al. ist totaler Unsinn (man pickt sich das raus, was stimmen könnte; anderes wird unterschlagen). Ich selbst habe in dem (heute so bezeichneten) Latino-Kanarisch von Fuerteventura und Lanzarote zuerst Südiberisch vermutet (anhand einiger weniger Inschriftenfunde). Als die Zahl der Inschriften jedoch stark anwuchs (und damit die Möglichkeit einer statistischen Lautwertanalyse im Zusammenhang mit ethnologisch/linguistisch sinnvollen Etymologien), habe ich mich ausdrücklich auf die Seite der Befürworter einer lateinischen Schrift geschlagen. An der Interpretation als lateinische Kursive kann heute keiner mehr ernsthaft deuteln - besonders nicht nach dem Fund von Bilinguen! Meine eigenen Forschungen auf Lanzarote lassen keinen Zweifel daran, dass es sich um eine besondere kanarische Variante der lateinischen Schrift handelt [man sehe u.a. Ulbrich, Hans-Joachim (2004): Transkulturelle Schriftvariation in den prähispanischen Felsbildern Lanzarotes (Kanarische Inseln).- IC-Nachrichten 86 (Institutum Canarium), Wien, 35-40]; möglicherweise mit neupunischem Einfluss was den Duktus betrifft. // Vielleicht hat Arnaiz-Villena meine (falsche) Anfangsvermutung aufgegriffen und meint nun, sie weiter entwickeln zu müssen.

Translation into English (feel free to check it):

The idea of a "Iberian Guanche" and its pseudoscientific (superficial) support as done by Arnaiz-Villena et.al. is complete nonsense (you pitch on what might fit; other things are suppressed). I myself originally surmised that the (by its present name) Latino-Canarian of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote was South-Iberian (owing to a rare few inscriptions found). However, since the number of inscriptions grew massively (and along with it the possibility of statistical phonetic value analyses in connection with ethnologically/linguistically reasonable etymologies), I have expressly joined those in favour of the Latin script. Today, nobody can seriously question the interpretation [of the inscriptions] as a Latin cursive - especially not since bilinguals have been found ! My own research on Lanzarote leaves no doubt that we are dealing with a special Canarian variant of the Latin script [cf. Ulbrich, Hans-Joachim (2004): Transkulturelle Schriftvariation in den prähispanischen Felsbildern Lanzarotes (Kanarische Inseln).- IC-Nachrichten 86 (Institutum Canarium), Wien, 35-40]; possibly with neo-punic influence as far as ductus is concerned. // Perhaps Arnaiz-Villena took up my (faulty) initial assumption and now feels the need to further expand it.

All the best, Phil Trigaranus (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC) s[reply]

If people is making jokes or playing with computers.Or computers have some users,you are not going to blame on me.

In addition,was it you who tagged Iberomesornix "shockpuppets"? I have seen this today. I find it foul play to Delete whatever one wishesaccusing without evidence.

On the other hand ,thank you very much for your information.The scripts are Iberian.All may be explained by using Levant Iberian and not with cursive Latin.Mixed scripts might be possible,but all analysed by me were "pure" Iberians .I do not mind what Arnaiz-Villena and Pichler said also before this German gentleman. Thank you again for your efforts--Virginal6 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Don't think editors can tag others as sockpuppets. But I asked them to look into it, as it seemed to be quite a typical case. Trigaranus (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you seriously need to calm down about that censorship paranoia of yours. In case you still haven't realised, please remember that you are more than free and welcome to include that theory on the WP page of the person who published it. It just does not warrant an article of its own, as it is considered nonsensical by the academic community, and thus a fringe theory. It is simply neither notable nor accepted enough to appear as a separate entry in an encyclopedia. Trigaranus (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dene-Caucasian

The consensus has been that Usko-Mediterranean is nonsense. Repeatedly adding it to the Dene-Caucasian article, when no adherents of the proposal so much as mention it, is inappropriate. Continuing to do so will get you blocked for edit warring and POV pushing. kwami (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps,this is not the time to adding this hypothesis to your Dene-Caucasian favourite page.In any case, I do not mind whether this hypothesis is accepted or not.It is not mine.But I agree ,at some extent, with it- You only agree with what you think ,and I have seen that you are not prepared to accept anything new,which is different to what you think. Please,consider consensus 1)Yourself,2)Dumu Eduba ,3)Trigaranus.I find too few people in this consensus. I know many more against ,like you know. Please,ask honestly yourself if you are defending knowlegde advance or yourself.--Virginal6 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iberian, again

It is not acceptable to use user pages as sources for our articles. Especially when you know full when the consensus is that this user is a crackpot. kwami (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami :the consensus is Trigaranus ,Dumu Eduba (where is he?) and yourself. Kwami,bullying is frequent in secondary schools in these days,unfortunately.It is even filmed and hung in Internet. I do not think Wikipedia likes it. --Virginal6 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping nonsense on Wikipedia is not bullying. It is also only proper to warn you if you engage in behaviour which will get you blocked. If you do it again, I will block you. You may, of course, go through the normal dispute resolution process if you think we're being unreasonable. kwami (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you,Kwami,are the Master of Wikipedia.You do not frighten me.I will go on,no doubt,but with the help of reasonable Wikipedia managers.Because I try to help Wikipedia and knowledge,and you, what are you doing?Keeping tight a dogma in which very few people believe? Or do you believe in what you are doing in this case?--Virginal6 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginal6, you have been asked on a few occasions to discontinue this content dispute about Iberian-Guanche script. Please work on something else for a while.

Kwamikagami, as you are involved in the content of this topical area[1], please continue to take further issues to the noticeboards rather than do the block yourself, or come and ask me to take a look.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty tenuous connection, but I'll come to you/boards first. kwami (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not even lokked at what they are doing with Iberian scripts.I will not do for a while It seems to me that virtual Dumu Eduba is going after me.He has not done anything for Wikipedia until my name came again. Could anybody delete (not Iberomesornix) that I am a puppet of him.?Particularly if Kwami-Dumu Eduba are involved in the accusation, Thank you--Virginal6 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only one who's suspected you of being a sock, so please don't delete the template. You are both single-issue accounts claiming the same persecution, operate from the same city, and have both claimed to be the author(s) of this hypothesis. At the very least, you're working with Iberomesornix in real life. kwami (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've blocked you from deleting the template. (Not that you've ever used your user page anyway.) If you think I'm out of bounds, take it to WP:ANI. kwami (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginal, no wonder you rally people to stand against you. I've been trying to keep out of this new burst of action of yours (as the last one was already extremely annoying in itself), but just look at what you are doing here: if you had taken just one sec to check Dumu's profile, you could have seen that he has been active on serious issues for quite a while, totally unrelated to your rantings. Leave the passive aggressive behaviour. You see, WP is a place to collect and make available facts and theories accepted by the academic community, not one to push fringe theories, and certainly not a place for personal struggles. I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: You are very welcome to add AAV's epigraphic theories to his article page. Outside of his publications, they have no standing. Trigaranus (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said to you in two emails, the sockpuppet tag stays until you work on another topic in a non-controversial manner. And please do not attack other contributors. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Wallace & Darwin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wallace & Darwin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wallace & Darwin.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Wallace & Darwin.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)I[reply]

HANGON

It has already posted.This is to construct a page /article in the following days,before deadline.--Virginal6 (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before writing your article, please answer the concerns at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_15#Wallace & Darwin.jpg

We need to know how you constructed this image.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena

Please come and discuss your reverts at Talk:Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena#reverted_edits. A lot of the detail in those changes is useful, so we need to know exactly what you think is a problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not keep copy and pasting the same list of problems onto the talk page. It was posted at #Talk:Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena#Libels_or_defamation_in_Wikipedia_articles, and we dont need another copy.

The discussion will be more useful if we only discuss one problem at a time.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Since you are Antonio (or have at least claimed to be), and your edits are matters of opinion and interpretation rather than verifiable facts such as date of birth, you should not edit the article yourself. Wikipedia:Autobiography suggests several roads you can take if you dispute the content of the article. However, repeatedly editing the article against consensus is not acceptable, and if you continue I will block you from editing at all. kwami (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing within articles

It's not done. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/* block warning */

Please stop making legal allegations against named parties which are not part of the public record, as you have now done twice at Arnaiz-Villena. You can be blocked for this. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a public record? I would recommend you to attach to the legal documents. Other "sources" like newspapers are saying different contradictory accusations. I have not done any legal allegation against non-bublic recorded people; all accused people were public,and also the accusators.Other matter,is that Dumu Eduba does not want to show them.Dont you think that a sentence is the unique reliable "public record"?. By some reason,Dumu is under your influence (from his part):please ,let him to do a sound work and shouw up the final:including the Royal College of Physicians research--Virginal6 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buy the way Kwami,I do not care about usko-mediterranean.Other people has namedthem in another way.However, please ask to somebody who knows how to read Iberian and you will see the the "Iberian-Guanche "inscriptions is Iberian.Translations are only proposals,as you know.Virginal6 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused people of committing crimes, and named them. If you have public sources such as newspapers that name them, that is acceptable, but otherwise we cannot allow it.

If you have newspaper or journal articles that exonerate Arnaiz, please provide them, and we will add them to the article. But we cannot allow simple censorship, and if you continue, we may block you for that as well. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Virginal6 (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Virginal6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only have this account

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A Shame for WP

We (Arnaiz1 and myself ) did not start this intervention in Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page.Dumu-Eduba started(June 9th 2010) concerted with Akerbeltz ,Trigaranus and Kwami, at least(are they sock puppets?), to change the "Law paragraph" and adding false newspapers news from 10 years ago naming in one newspaper reference Arnaiz-Villena and myself in a defamatory way. Now,none of them wants to finish the case because they Know the termination:all newspaper news were false.Sentences,Judges names and dates have been given to them in the AAV discussion page.If newspapers are used here,in law cases:full stop. They do not want to work more ,but it seems that their aim is bocking us. If they want to mantain the page as such,fair enough,but it is a shame for WP. I am not going to ask a friend to edit for me .I have been clear enough. Do as you wish.Everybody in our scocial and proffesional areas know what happened 10 YEARS AGO:TWO MONTH AFTER FORBIDDING THE PALESTINIAN PAPER. I can make useful contributions if unblocked but details about finishing the case are already written in "Arnaiz-Villena"page discussion.Virginal6 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the piece with all information and termination by Judges of the case proving that 2 months papers accusations were false. "=Suspension and false accusations= In 2002, Arnaiz-Villena was suspended without pay from the Hospital Doce de Octubre, after being accused,together with four other people from his research team ,of several false unproper and delictive conducts On November 2003 the Court of Administrative Litigation no. 8 (one body Judge Court)of Madrid issued a sentence stating that Administration was right in suspending him to 33 months of suspension from work without pay. . This was appealed against and a sentence was issued by the Madrid Supreme Court (Five Body Judges,Section 7,January 10th 2004,”Ponente” Judge Carmen Alvarez-Theurer,Sentence 1/04) which declared invalid the previous sentence(·”anulada”) because of unbased accusations. Though suspended from the hospital, he continued his work at the University and at the Health Service since the Fisrt Sentence against Helath Service in this case was given by the Madrid Supreme Court (Three Body Judges,Section 3,February 19th 2003,”Ponente” Ines Garicano ,Sentence 184).The Public Prosecutor Luis Ibañez issued an Act showing that some Arnaiz-Villena students had been forced to declare against him and against other member of the group(July 11th 2005).The Criminal Court closed down the case on January 4th 2006. The same conclussion of induced false accusations reached The Royal College of Physicians that started an investigation at Arnaiz-Villena request (November 7th 2006). I belong to Arnaiz-Villena research group.He has asked me to put up this document to help solving the case as Wikipedia asks.He also asks to be free to talk in Wikipedia.. All of us here in Spain,and all scientific world here and abroad related to our research topic knows this affaire . Newspapers around the world commented on the case .Silence in Spain was total after the first 2 months of accusations. Arnaiz was already in the Health Service(after the 1st sentence) and other accusated researchers have good posts with productive research also. We have published a lot since 2000 in bird and human population genetics (not only the four –five papers named in WP). [13] However,we think that obscure forces are after us.A sample of this is that Dumu Eduba (a linguist) unexpectedly started to put up in Wikipedia a legal attack without finihing it. We ask Wikipedia to remove the whole section·”embezzlement” until Dumu Eduba finishes his work with the help of any of us which can be reached in telephones or E mails put up in Arnaiz-Villena personal page`[14].Symbio04 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)"Virginal6 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]