User talk:1TWO3Writer/Archive 2

Unsubstantiated censoring of edits on the "Black Athena" book page

I have just noted you have reversed ALL my edits to the Black Athena page without providing any explanation. Since when is it "vandalism" to quote scholars and academics criticising a highly controversial and long-debunked book? All the relevant references have been provided, most in the form of direct quotes from the primary peer-reviewed sources criticising this book, which you have all censored without explanation and without justification.

As currently written, this article provides a biased and largely distorted view of the claims and fallacies in Bernal's thesis and its critical review by experts, not accurately reflecting facts. This book has prompted strong criticism by the academic community and its premises and hypotheses have been universally rejected by historians, linguists, and in recent years by several genetic studies directly refuting an African or Levantine colonisation of Greece. What exactly is then your justification for censoring the criticism to this book by acclaimed scholars, historians and geneticists and their arguments against it? You have even censored the word "controversial" used for this book. Can anyone seriously argue that this book has not been -at the very least- controversial? Is this an accurate description of how this work is perceived by the vast majority of academics and scholars?

By censoring the criticism and all experts' opinions disputing Bernal's extraordinary and by now debunked claims, you are essentially endorsing and promoting this book's content, claims and ideas and silencing opposition. This is propaganda, not an accurate representation of history and facts, neither is this objective writing or accurate representation of the overwhelming criticism this book and its content have received. As such, your actions are direct in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for good practice.

I would therefore kindly ask you to restore my edits before this issue goes to arbitration and formal reports are made.

46.251.117.65 (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I copied and pasted my response to your initial comment which has been on your user talk page that you have yet to respond to. To clarify: for any changes that transform the article significantly must be accompanied by a source. Regardless of whether you know personally that the controversy exists, there needs to be a source that exists beyond you stating it is so, like an article from a notable journal critiquing the book. WP:WHYCITE WP:NOR

As for the edit themselves, your statements violate multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Due to the nature and tone of your edits, it was viewed as vandalism, but if your intention was purely in good faith then I apologize. However, unless you cite your edits using reliable sources, especially when they critique the subject of an article, then the edits will not be reinstated.

In addition to this, please refrain from accusing users of censorship WP:GF and threatening users that certain action will be made unless your edits are reverted. This can lead to a loss of civility WP:CIV and can constitute as WP:HA if persistent and hostile.

Feel free to respond to any further inquires you may have. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear 1TWO3Writer,

You can easily see from all my edits in Wikipedia that I have never engaged in vandalism, but have only provided edits in science and history with the best intentions. Your apology is welcome and accepted.

I am nonetheless amazed that you still claim I have not provided "credible" sources for my edits, because none of those words are actually my own. I have been publishing scientific papers in leading journals for many years now and I believe I understand quite well how to properly back up claims and provide credible references. The extracts and criticism I have provided are only a small fraction of what has been written by academics about Bernal and his thesis. These are extracts from peer-reviewed papers published in credible scientific journals, not my personal opinion or my own words, nor gossip in popular media. They are legitimate scientific rebuttals of Bernal's outrageous claims. As customary, I had of course included these publications in the reference list, which you or anyone could check and verify or falsify (Gress 1989; Levine 1992; Lazarides et al. 2017). Have you done that before deleting them and accusing me of vandalism?

My intention is none other than to provide a balanced, accurate, objective and up-to-date account of the overall criticism this debunked book and its claims have received by the academic community. At the moment, this article is highly problematic, because it provides a sympathetic view of a highly flawed and discredited piece of work which carries obvious racist undertones and revokes 19th century race science theories simply by reversing the roles of the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (black vs white and vice versa). At the same time, some of the more serious criticism of this work is being repeatedly censored from this page by sympathisers and Afrocentrists who happen to be editors, and would of course like Bernal's claims to be true.

This is not history and science, it's pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Bernal based his entire thesis on the fallacious and unsubstantiated assumption that Greece was colonised by Egyptians and Phoenicians who, according to him, brought civilisation to the "illiterate" Greeks. These wild claims have not only been debunked by historians and linguists (some of them in the references that I have provided and which you have inexplicably deleted), but also by multiple archaeogenetic studies in recent years (see, e.g., Lazarides et al. 2017 among others, I can provide several more if you like). There was no Egyptian and Phoenician colonisation of ancient Greece, as no genetic influx from these regions has been detected in ancient skeletons. Bernal's deliriums have been cordially debunked by hard DNA science, yet even the addition of the Lazarides et al. (2017) reference providing hard genetic evidence against Bernal's claims, has been previously deleted from this page. Why?

You have also deleted a quotation by Bernal himself I had provided, openly admitting that his book had a political purpose rather than a strictly historical one: “the political purpose of Black Athena is, of course, to lessen European cultural arrogance". These are not my own words, they are Bernal's own words in the introduction of Black Athena, which you have again deleted. Why?

Moreover, at the same time you preach me about references and delete my edits, you do not seem to be too concerned with other unsubstantiated claims in the current article, stating that, "although Bernal's hypotheses have been widely rejected, his work has still had a significant impact on classical scholarship and Egyptology.[citation needed] Some classicists have praised him for putting a spotlight on what they consider to be a Eurocentric bias in classical scholarship.[citation needed], which provide no citations of such claims yet are not deleted. Why?

I sincerely hope that you restore the extracts from the academic references I have provided, to convey a more balanced account of the true reception Bernal's fallacies were really received by the academic community and the validity they really have. I do not wish to engage in conflict, arbitration or reports, but will take this as far as I have to, to restore the political censorship, mishandling and malpractice of this sensitive issue that is being imposed on this article.

[[46.251.117.65 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)]]

Hi,

I do not doubt the truth of your edit. I have little interest in anything other than the verifiablity of the claims you make. You cite many papers yet failed to include them in your original edit. You may edit the article again, I am not stopping you, but as long as you actually cite the papers this information and criticism comes from (ensuring the information is formatted correctly using the visual editor cite feature), the edit will be approved and added to the article. I am not here to censor anything - rather, I am here to prevent people from adding unsourced information to articles that may be controversial. For example, let's take a famous footballer article - any really - and let's say someone added a true statement but did not source said statement. That statement would be removed because it did not cite a source - as did your edit.

As I said in my original response, I apologize for the accusation of vandalism. It is clear you are working in good faith, and I failed to identify that in your edit. However, it is still up to you to provide sources for your claims, rather than saying that they are true because so-and-so.

Yes, indeed, the original article did contain information that needed a citation. The thing is, I review multiple articles a day that have pending reviews, and until today I have never seen that article before. I do not have as much knowledge in the field as you yourself clearly have, however that is besides the point: when it comes to articles that need their edits reviewed, reviewers such as myself, unless the edit is minor such as cosmetic, will see that an edit, despite its plausibility, will have no source and will revert it.

I am in no responsibility in providing the citation of your edit - it is up to you to provide it.

1TWO3Writer (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, I did provide the citations. In any case, I will provide them again and add some more, hopefully in a more direct manner to avoid misunderstandings.

Best regards,

[[46.251.117.65 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)]]

RedWarn report to AIV feature

Hello! Just thought I should let you know that while viewing a diff or on a userpage, the "More options" button in RedWarn has a report to AIV feature at the bottom. You might find it useful! Vukky, a real human 👀 (talk to me!) 11:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, right, thank you very much! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy nomination

Just wanted to let you know I tagged 1TWO3Writer/Wataru Watari for speedy deletion as non-controversial maintenance since it appears you created it in error. Link20XX (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

All good! Thanks and sorry for the bother. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen your pending changes reviewer request when I was adding mine and would like to say that I think you are probably going to get the role. I've seen some of your edits, and they look very good to me. Thank you for your contributions. -- Justiyaya (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Congrats, you got the role :) -- Justiyaya (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Moss project

Welcome to the Moss project and thank you for participating! The more editors we have, the faster typos on Wikipedia get corrected.

When you make a correction to an article, it's better to delete the entry on the Moss page than to leave an explanation. Somebody else will delete the entry anyway. For entries that have several errors, this applies only to those that are completely fixed; for a partial fix, delete those that are fixed and change the number to correspond those that remain.

Entries with explanations should generally be for those that can't be fixed, or shouldn't be because they're correct. For example, if you don't know how to use the chemistry templates to fix chemical formulas (or don't have the patience), mark it "chemistry term" or "chemical formula". Somebody else may fix it and then will delete the entry. All the entries with explanations get moved to the case notes section of the Moss page at the bottom, sometimes right away, other times in sections.

Again, welcome!

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry for the inconvenience! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Chetsford (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

hello friend i was hoping you could help me with translations

I wanted to write my name in Japanese from English and also the letters of the alphabet, do you have any idea for the best way for this? for example when I google translate a name or a letter, it kind of screws me over with different meanings and such, all I wanted was to write my name and letters in a different language, but don't really know how. I am asking you this only because I saw you post on translations article, just hoping you could maybe have the answer, thankyou friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Usually, if your name is non-Japanese, it is written using katakana.　If you search something like "English to katakana" or "Name to Japanese", you should get something that works! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

do you know japanese? if i said this エックス and this エー what do they say/mean? thankyou EzeeWiki (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

First one is the pronunciation of 'X', second one is 'A'. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Does the pronunciation of エックス and エー mean how you spell that in Japanese too? thankyou mate! EzeeWiki (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

thankyou, you been very helpful :) EzeeWiki (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi 1TWO3Writer. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Please check for copyright violations

Please check new articles for copyright violations before you mark them as reviewed. For example, Islamabad Policy Research Institute, which you marked as reviewed, is a verbatim copy of the Institute's website. If you find copyright violations, you should either tag it for speedy deletion or request a revision deletion, whichever is more appropriate. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. Won't happen again. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to October 2 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sorry for the inconvenience! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

No inconvenience! Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ao Jyūmonji

1TWO3Writer - Was just reviewing your deletion request. I'm not familiar with the topic, would it make more sense to leave this as a redirect (Ao Jyūmonji -> Ao Jūmonji)? Prodego ^talk 18:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I originally translated the article under the name Ao Jyumonji however after looking at other articles containing his name, I noticed they omitted the y, so I decided to change it to match (moving the page). In my opinion, I do not think the redirect serves any purpose as any mention of the writer on Wikipedia uses the y spelling (as seen in Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash). Of course, it's not a critical thing and if you feel like the redirect could be helpful somewhat, then by all means keep it.

Thanks for the quick response! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Nomination

Hello, I created a page named Arvind Arora and it seems that you're going to delete this page. For your further information I'd like to inform you that this page is real and the person to whom this page belong to is a YouTuber with more than 8 million subscribers and he is also one of most famous speaker and a motivator.

YouTube channel link :- https://youtube.com/channel/UC6ERimtc5zFrn7x6Bk3HaHA

Thank You Yashkr123 (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yashkr,

Your article was nominated for deletion because it contained no content after ten minutes of being up WP:A3. It was also nominated for Wikipedia:G3 because the language used in the article does not follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you want to work on the article, please create and use a sandbox to create your article until it is ready for review. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)