User talk:Dalhoa

Horn of Africa
Sorry, didn't mean "Unexplained changes". Was the article unavailable because it required subscriber access? That's fairly common and I don't think it's a disqualification for a reference. WQUlrich (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Also re Horn of Africa
The article has subscriber access unless you make a free account (that is another option which gives you complete access to the article without subscribing). That's what I did. Here are some excerpts from the article (which contains quotes from the researchers). Also, the previous text (before your deletion) was not geared toward Irhoud (as you wrote in your edit note), as all Irhoud-related material had been removed previously.

"The ancestry of all living humans can be traced to Africa. Studies of DNA indicate our common ancestors lived somewhere on the continent between 260,000 and 350,000 years ago."

"In 1986, for example, paleoanthropologists discovered a fossil in Kenya between 270,000 and 300,000 years old. They called it “archaic Homo sapiens.” Other experts argued it belonged to another species altogether. And others have simply thrown up their hands. Two years ago, a team of scientists working in Morocco offered a major new clue. They discovered a set of fossil remains, about 315,000 years old, that belonged to Homo sapiens — the oldest remains of our species yet found."

"Dr. Mounier and Dr. Lahr worked their way backward from this modern diversity to what they believe was the skull of a common ancestor.They took CT scans of 260 skulls of people from a wide range of populations. "They also scanned 100,000-year-old skulls found in Israel that are clearly similar to those of living humans."

"Then the scientists placed all of these living and extinct individuals on an evolutionary tree. In doing so, they were able to trace the evolution of skulls along each of the branches, arriving at a picture of the skull of the common ancestor of living humans.

Referring to the projected common ancestor: “More or less, it’s quite a modern human,” Dr. Mounier said of the skull. “But it doesn’t really correspond to any current population — it’s something different.”

"Dr. Mounier and Dr. Lahr compared their ancestral skull with real African fossil skulls from the same period. ...they think the fossils belong not to a single population, but to three." The Moroccan fossil belongs to one population. Another fossil, found in Tanzania, represents the second. The third population includes two fossils from two sites that are thousands of miles apart: South Africa and Kenya. This third population, the researchers concluded, most closely resembles the ancestor of modern humans. The evolutionary lineage that gave rise to modern humans produced a number of populations across Africa around 350,000 years ago, Dr. Mounier and Dr. Lahr speculate. These humans all had big brains and made increasingly sophisticated tools.

"But there were clear differences in their anatomy. In Morocco, for example, early Homo sapiens had a very Neanderthal-like appearance. “It’s clearly not the closest candidate to play a role in the evolution of modern humans,” Dr. Mounier said. The populations from which the Moroccan and Tanzanian fossils come from may have died out without contributing to the gene pool of living humans. But other groups may have come into contact from time to time and interbred. That’s what may have happened to ancient humans in East and South Africa. “The idea is that they merged to eventually form our species,” Dr. Mounier said." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/science/human-ancestor-skull-computer.html

Here, and in the paper, Lahr and Mounier evaluate various fossils from Africa and elsewhere, and conclude that the Irhoud population (and possibly certain others) may represent one branch of very early Homo sapiens, but that it (Irhoud) may have died out, and that current living people likely instead descend from another branch (or branches) of early Homo sapiens that merged in various parts of East and South Africa to form the common ancestor between 260,000 and 350,000 years ago (as represented by the above mentioned Kenyan and South African fossils). They also suggest that the Irhoud population (a branch of it or a closely related lineage) may have at some point migrated into Europe and contributed dna to the Neanderthals (which, they hypothesize, may account for the fact that known Neanderthal mtdna lineages are much closer to those of modern humans/H. sapiens than the overall genetic closeness of Neanderthals to H. sapiens would predict — an earlier study, on that basis, similarly proposed an early H. sapiens migration from Africa into Europe, intermixing with Neanderthals —, and they may also have contributed to the phenotypes of later/"classic" Neanderthals, in part accounting for their partial phenotypic similarities to Irhoud). Skllagyook (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Re Horn of Africa dispute
I have put in a request for mediation regarding the Horn of Africa dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Skllagyook (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

== There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ==

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Skllagyook (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Northeast Africa
I don't understand your reasoning for proposing the redirect be deleted. Maybe expand on that, if you wish? El_C 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

horn of africa or east africa
thank you for your recent edits as recently there is constant vandalism of the horn of Africa page calling it east africa. Its clear the horn of africa is a distinct region on its own. also, I don't know why you deleted the two sources I supplied one from unhcr and the other a united nations ambassador to the horn of Africa.--Gashaamo (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your Unhcr article says Horn of Africa is part of a subregion called East and Horn of Africa that also includes some Great Lakes countries(Kenya,Uganda), some North African countries(Sudan,South Sudan) and one North-central African country(Chad), the other article just mentions an envoy to HoA. In any case, Horn Africa is in Africa and it is what everyone agrees on, so lets just keep it that way. Dalhoa (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

no, the unchr source clearly separated that the regions into east Africa and horn of Africa and are therefore not sub-regions but different regions in Africa, and to add the UN has an envoy specifically to the horn African nations of Djibouti Ethiopia Somalia and Eritrea. Also, the east African term that is used is in reference to East Africa an area distinct from the horn of Africa. These east African countries have now formed their own East African federation which none of the horn African countries are members of these include Uganda Kenya Burundi and Tanzania and several other Swahili speaking countries which form a cultural zone distinct to the horn of Africa, therefore further use of the term and any links to east Africa and horn of africa should be avoided.--Gashaamo (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Dalhoa not that I disagree with your edits I think they are much better detailed and better than mines and they also avoid any mentions of a link between east and horn of Africa. However the sources a supplied should also be added as they can avoid any future vandalism of a proposed link between east and horn of Africa--Gashaamo (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not following you, your Unhcr article clearly says East and Horn of Africa subregion, are you saying this is a new policy from the UN and there is no more an East Africa region and this is a newly created region? and what does this have to do with a UN envoy to IGAD countries? I am confused, anyways now it says Africa as you wanted so I don't really see the issue. Dalhoa (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

== There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Skllagyook (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC) ==

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Skllagyook (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This notice is regarding the same issue as the previous ANI notice above (not an additional/new issue). But the original post at ANI did not receive a response and so I reposted it. And in keeping with Wikipedia rules, I am notifying you (again). Skllagyook (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Dalhoa. You may not be currently active, since it is two days since your last edit. But if you are here, it would be beneficial for you to respond in the thread at ANI opened by Skllagyook. The two of you have been in a dispute at Human, and Skllagyook has complained about this to administrators. Disagreements like this one normally call for WP:Dispute resolution. Normally this would be routinely closed as not requiring any admin action, but there have been accusations of bad faith in two recent discussions between the two of you:
 * Talk:Horn of Africa, and
 * Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans
 * The title 'Jebel Irhoud in Morocco obsession' seems unusual if this is a pure content dispute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yes it is a content dispute and it should go to WP:Dispute resolution. There is a concerted effort by user Skllagyook and others throughout Wikipedia to make Jebel Irhoud ancestral to H.sapiens and also reclassify it as Anatomically modern H.sapien, this is not what the Scientific community says and if you tried to correct that misinformation you are met with pov,stonewalling,stalking and threats of report. This misinformation is spread to many Wikipedia pages and so I called it obsession but as user Skllagyook persisted in this obsession I called it revisionism. Wikipedia should be about the spread of accurate information and what he and others are doing is antithesis to that and harms the image of the Encyclopedia. I will try to file a content dispute and also make a report to the No original research noticeboard. Dalhoa (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have explained endlessly why these accusations are not accurate, only to be ignored. I am not trying to classify Irhoud as modern H. sapiens. We had that conversation a while ago and agreed on the distinction between early and modern sapiens, and I have since been editing accordingly. I do not understand why you continue to accuse me of this. This is an example of the kind of conduct I am taking about. And you have failed to explain why my edits on the Human page (or elsewhere) were POV (or your accusations of stalking, etc, to which I responded). I took the effort to explain the issue with the Human page (in the notes and in Talk) to have you largely ingnore me and reinstate your edit again. I have done everything I can do to be civil and conciliatory. This does appear to be (to a significant degree) a conduct issue and requires outside intervention. Skllagyook (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Skllagyook (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Skllagyook One of the MOST important thing you should do is add accurate information to Wikipedia. You and others did not add to the Jebel Irhoud wiki that those fossils are classified as archaic or early H.sapiens, but instead you around in many Wikipedia pages and claim Jebel Irhoud is H.sapiens and then add it to the Anatomically modern section of the Homo sapiens Wiki and when I try to tell you that you stonewall and make threats of report. You have to add accurate information to Wikipedia and not your pov. And please stop this constant editing of your answers, nobody can add their answer if you are constantly editing, you do the same thing to the Wiki and it makes harder for people to edit. Dalhoa (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you haven't responded at ANI. If you continue to cast aspersions and editwar, you are likely to be blocked. Doug Weller  talk 14:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Land of Punt. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''You removed well-sourced material calling it fringe. And oddly, although you called Ian Shaw's book fringe, you left it being used elsewhere. Given that you removed most of the alternative locations (or was it all?) it was clearly done to match your pov.'' Doug Weller  talk 14:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Homo sapiens idaltu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your edit summary called User:Arminden a vandal, although their edit was clearly not vandalism. Doug Weller  talk 14:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the accusations, I did not add any commentary, pov or personal analysis, I directly quoted the source. However, what is a commentary, pov and personal analysis is keeping those fringe theories in the page when the archaeological and dna finds all point to the Horn of Africa. As for labelling the revert of Arminden an attack and condoning the revert of 2601:405:4A00:75F0:CE:CFAA:163B:339C it is clear there is a pattern of bias against HoA. Dalhoa (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've taken this to WP:RSN. I probably should go to NPOVN as well as this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Doug Weller  talk 19:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug, with all due respect, you are the one who promoted the Sri Lankan theory and you are the one who promotes the Arabian theory, if Punt was located in North Africa the wiki would be locked but since it is HoA people seem to not accept archaeological and dna evidence and prefer to promote their own view. I think this needs to stop because it is not contributing to the well being of the Encyclopedia. Dalhoa (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I'm promoting nothing, it's our role to show all significant views, ie views that have several reliable sources. No Egyptologist thinks Meeks is fringe. I don't support the Sri Anka or biblical suggestions but that doesn't mean they don't belong. But you should post at the discussion. Doug Weller  talk 21:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are promoting fringe locations not supported by archaeological and dna evidence and it is against Wikipedia policy. WP:FRINGE is a content guideline which prohibits unwarranted promotion of theories which are not supported by mainstream scholarship and science in the theory's field. Dalhoa (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you don't understand WP:FRINGE and I'm not promoting anything. I haven't reverted you, I haven't supported the inclusion of the Sri Lanka material, but I have supported the inclusion of statements by reputable Egyptologists. I note you haven't commented at RSN where your interpretation of Fringe has been challenged. Doug Weller  talk 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Sri Lankan, Arabian, and Biblical locations are not supported by archaeological and dna evidence and you seem to deliberately ignore Bard, Kathryn, Fattovicht, and Rodolfo who are refuting all those locations in support of HoA. If your argument is these locations should be included because an author mentions them and they should be treated as a minority view not fringe, well again it violates the WP:NPOV you just quoted which states: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. You are using the reliable sources claim to support a fringe or minority view which is against WP:NPOV. I think it is time to drop this nonsense and accept that mainstream scholarship and science locate Punt in the Horn of Africa. Dalhoa (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion cannot be settled here, it needs to be settled at RSN. Go argue your view on NPOV there as it's being discussed, not here. Your accusations are without merit.  Doug Weller  talk 16:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think at this point it is clear that there is something going on the likes of Jebel Irhoud and I will be reporting it along with that. Dalhoa (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith
Dalhoa, I have read your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=937046997#Deliberate_well_orchestrated_tactics_to_spread_pov_and_fringe_theories. posts] on WP:ANI and Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans, and they are full of unreasonable aspersions and personal attacks over a content disagreement. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Discuss the content, not the person. The next time you attack good faith users and accuse them of vandalism, stalking, threats, and bad intentions altogether without any evidence, you will be blocked for violations of our no personal attacks policy. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

January 2020
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Dalhoa. Are you aware that nearly all your edits are marked with an "m" for "minor edit", even though most of them aren't minor? You'll see all the little ms if you look at your list of contributions. This is misleading for other editors. The way you mark an edit is by checking the "This is a minor edit" checkbox before you publish, as in the illustration. Is this something you do on purpose, or is the box checked by default? Please reply below. It's not nice to ignore people who try to engage with you. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I just read the Minor edit wiki, I'll follow it in future. Dalhoa (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Herto,idaltu.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Herto,idaltu.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay let’s hash this out.
Here is your version of the “Ethnonym” section in Cushitic peoples

“The word Cushi or Kushi (Hebrew: כּוּשִׁי‎ kuši) also appears several times in the Hebrew Bible to refer to a black Ethiopian, descendant of Cush, equivalent to Greek Aethiops. This has later been changed to a dark-skinned person of African and non-African descent in later versions of both the Bible and Hebrew sources. The word is a derivation of Cush (כּוּשׁ Kūš), referring to the ancient Kingdom of Kush. In the Hebrew Bible, Cushites are considered descendants of Noah's grandson, Cush the son of Ham. In biblical and historical usage this continued, the term "Cushites" (Ethiopid race) referring to individuals of Ethiopian origin (Horn of Africa ).[20][21] The Cushitic-speaking peoples today comprise the Agaw, Oromo, Somali, Afar, and several other tribes, and were considered offspring of Cush in Masudi's Meadows of Gold from 947 AD.[22] The Beja people, who also speak a Cushitic language, have specific genealogical traditions of descent from Cush.[23][24] The term Cushite then derives from the ancient peoples of northeastern Africa, whose heritage can be traced most clearly in the languages descended from those of the ancient peoples who inhabited the corridor between present day Southern Egypt and Tanzania.[25] In broad terms the peoples now designated as Cushite are the cultural descendants of those peoples. However, the term Cushite is an ethno-linguistic designation. Languages have a much more stable and traceable identity and heritage than cultural groups. The Cushite peoples are thus those who speak languages or have historically spoken languages of the Cushite cluster in the Afro-Asiatic language family. These cultural groups may be of diverse types and exhibit a variety of unique features but with powerful common cultural, ethnic and linguistic traits, including nomadic cattle pastoralist traditions.“

And here’s mine

“The word Cushi or Kushi (Hebrew: כּוּשִׁי‎ kuši) appears several times in the Hebrew Bible to refer to a dark-skinned person of African descent, equivalent to Greek Aethiops. This has been changed to "Ethiopia/Ethiopian" in later versions of the Bible, such as the King James Bible. The word is a derivation of Cush (כּוּשׁ Kūš), referring to the ancient Kingdom of Kush. In the Hebrew Bible, Cushites are considered descendants of Noah's grandson, Cush the son of Ham. In biblical and historical usage this continued, the term "Cushites" (Ethiopid race) referring to individuals of East African origin (Horn of Africa and Sudan).[20] The Cushitic-speaking peoples today comprise the Agaw, Oromo, Somali, Afar, and several other tribes, and were considered offspring of Cush in Masudi's Meadows of Gold from 947 AD.[21] The Beja people, who also speak a Cushitic language, have specific genealogical traditions of descent from Cush.[22][23] The term Cushite then derives from the ancient peoples of northeastern Africa, whose heritage can be traced most clearly in the languages descended from those of the ancient peoples. In broad terms the peoples now designated Cushite are the cultural descendants of those peoples. However, the term Cushite is primarily a linguistic designation, languages have a much more stable and traceable identity and heritage than cultural groups. The Cushite peoples are thus those who speak languages or have historically spoken languages of the Cushite cluster in the Afro-Asiatic language family. These cultural groups may be of diverse types and exhibit a variety of unique features but with powerful common cultural, ethnic and linguistic traits, including nomadic cattle pastoralist traditions.“

Here’s the problems I have with yours.

1. You believe Cushite in the Bible is referencing the modern nation-state of Ethiopia when this is clearly wrong (see here for Young’s literal translation https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/13-23.htm or here for original Hebrew where Kusi meaning ”Cushite” is translated as Ethiopian https://biblehub.com/text/jeremiah/13-23.htm). The error comes from the original Greek meaning of Ethiopia meaning all the black skinned civilizations south of Egypt, which includes modern Ethiopia but is not limited to modern Ethiopia, in fact “Cushite” is in reference to the Kingdom of Cush, which was in modern Sudan. So Cushite could be said to be equivalent to Aethiops, the Greek definition, but not “black Ethiopian” as you wrote, as this is highly misleading.

2. The part where you write that the historical term “Ethiopid” race refers only to people from the Horn of Africa, again this is incorrect, as the term refers to all “Eastern Hamites” which is clearly states in the Wikipedia article that goes with it, and this includes many people from Sudan and some as far north as Egypt. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamites

3. The part where I wrote Cushitic is primarily a linguistic concept in the modern era, this is decidedly true, as the overwhelming amount of papers and studies that mention “Cushitic” are in the field of linguistics and very few in ethnology/anthropology see: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Cushitic&btnG= 92.32.156.40 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The term is Cushi not Cushite, you are vandalising the page by removing sourced content. Dalhoa (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing the page. Here’s the other source cited besides the one you edited in, written by Harry Goulbourne it says what I mean quite clearly, page 123 section titled “Who is a Cushi” https://books.google.ca/books?id=WIg_9GI9a8gC&lpg=PA123&ots=AXu_O3VPxk&dq=hebrew%20cushi&pg=PA123#v=onepage&q=Who%20is%20a%20cushi%20&f=false

“As has been discussed in some detail by several authors, the term Cush appears no less than 50 times in the Hebrew Bible. Translated into the Greek as Ethiopia, it’s usage is actually far vaguer and in a general sense refers to areas south of Egypt which today include Sudan, Eritrea and modern Ethiopia.” I am reverting it back since you seem unwilling to have a conversation WP:AGF MusIbr (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are the other editor but Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism pov should not be spread in the wiki. Dalhoa (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the other editor, then typing from my phone. I also began the article we are discussing which has turned out decently with the great help of other Wikipedia editors like yourself. What about my edits seemed afrocentrist or eurocentrist to you? I consider myself neither, so I'm geniunely curious. MusIbr (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You are spreading pov, the source provides a clear definition, you are using the later interpretation. Dalhoa (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the source you added which gives the definition of Cushi as "Black; Ethiopian; Descendant of Cush"? You realize this is different from "Black Ethiopian descendant of Cush", right?.. Besides, the source I qouted in a previous reply here, which is also in the article, makes it clear that Cushite is not a 1:1 translation to Ethiopian. MusIbr (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: I warned you above that I'd block you if you attack people again. Your reply to 92.32.156.40 / User:MusIbr, who obviously came to your page for good-faith discussion, is scandalous, with the assumption of bad faith and accusation of vandalism. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC).

Don't describe legitimate edits as "vandalism"
Having just been blocked for throwing around "accusations of vandalism" you do it again not 10 days later? Please be more careful with your wording of edit summaries. As for the substance of your revert, my edit was trying to address the problem of using imprecise language that tends to fall out of date. Simply put, articles should almost never use words like current[ly] or recent[ly] without giving some indication of what time is being referred to. The Human article currently (as of the time I'm posting this ;) contains at least 10 such statements (a handful of uses of "recent" and "recently" are actually given enough context to stay as they are). I have tried to improve one of them, in the lead. If you have better ideas of how to do that, go ahead. But do not simply revert the lead back to the way it was. (Note: This has been brought up on the article's talk page. You are invited to comment there, if you wish.) - dcljr (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what vandalism on Wikipedia is: On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. You have not changed any other "recently" word in that article you just targeted that Omo-Kibish direct quote like the others have done and added the same 2017 date. Again, Jebel Irhoud has not been classified as Anatomically modern H.sapiens, in 2017 they only pushed back the fossils date but the fossils are still archaic or early H.sapiens, some researchers also say they are earlier subspecies of H. helmei, so please stop this WP:OR, Wikipedia should be about scientific evidence and not pov.Dalhoa (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines vandalism at WP:VAND. Using an edit summary of "Rv vandalism" for this diff is an error. One-off errors are a dime-a-dozen and no problem. However, the response above shows an inability to engage with what other editors say, and that is a serious problem. Please be very careful about describing edits as vandalsim because refusing to follow procedures can lead to sanctions. Independent advice can be obtained at WP:Teahouse—I suggest checking there. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a One-off error, that quote has been vandalised before in multiple locations, it was vandalised Jan 4 in that article and the next day the other user proposed in the talk page the change the vandal did. The Encyclopedia is supposed to be about facts if editors are rewriting things to suit their European/Caucasian view they should not be engaged in revisionism. Dalhoa (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator who noticed a report at a noticeboard (I forget where, probably ANI) and I subsequently added this talk page to my watchlist to monitor any issues arising. I am formally notifying you that repeatedly referring to edits such as the above as "vandalism" will result in a block. You are free to disagree, but that will not affect the outcome. Please take my suggestion of WP:Teahouse seriously because you will be sympathetically heard there, and independent editors will offer an opinion. I have no idea what you mean by "if editors are rewriting things to suit their European/Caucasian view" but it sounds extremely bad because it seems to suggest that some editors (that could be identified with a little investigating) are pushing a view. Please take great care to avoid framing a dispute (particularly one based on whether "currently" should be used) in terms of "their European/Caucasian view". That is extremely unpleasant and will lead to sanctions if repeated. Such a comment might be ok at a noticeboard if not directed at a particular editor, but it would have to be backed up with an explanation, and the explanation is all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you added this talk page to your watch list and then you saw a One-off error and decided to drop by. Listen mister admin, I don't know what is the end game, maybe it is to piggyback on the African multiregionalism and claim Jebel Irhoud is the ancestors of the Caucasians or what not, they can call Jebel Irhoud Jesus or Lucy if they want to but they should not vandalise that quote and I am not agreeing to the removal of the term currently from that quote in a Teahouse or any other place, once a peer-reviewed paper comes out stating fossils x over 200ka have been classified as AM H.sapiens and the whole world knows about them then I would agree until that happens this is just the usual Eurocentric views everyone is accustomed to. Dalhoa (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The end game is to have everyone focus on article content (WP:FOC). Rather than describing a good-faith edit as "vandalism", just explain what the perceived problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well this is about content there is nothing personal I don't know that person and the others I am just going by their edits but you seem to be implying considering their edits vandalism is attacking them personally and that their edits should be considered good faith despite all the evidence to the contrary. Again, those edits in the Human wiki are inaccurate, good faith should not be used as an excuse to write misinformation, I assumed good faith when user Skllagyook was doing the Jebel Irhoud edits in the Horn of Africa wiki but then I lost faith. I don't know what this obsession is about, but my guess is it has something to do with Caucasians, North Africa, and Ancient Egyptians being North African Caucasians. Bottom line is that quote is a valid quote, there is nothing wrong with it, if the previous user has a peer-reviewed paper that says Jebel Irhoud is the oldest AM H.sapiens then he/she should bring it forth otherwise their edits are vandalism. Dalhoa (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the approach you have outlined but let me explain why WP:VAND defines vandalism the way it does. Suppose editors A and B disagree about a particular phrase in an article. A says "your edit is vandalism" and B replies "your edit is vandalism". How does that help anything? All it does is raise the temperature to be followed with a battle. If editor C comes along, what are they supposed to make of the explanation "your edit is vandalism"? All C can tell is that A is saying that B's edit is worthless junk—equivalent to writing poop—and B is saying the same about A. Saying it's vandalism is a complete waste of time. However, it's more than that—it is an insult because assume good faith is a policy that requires each editor to assume that other editors (apart from those who write poop) believe they are improving the article, and they probably have a reason for believing that. At any rate, I am merely reporting standard procedure and informing you that describing edits such as those mentioned here as vandalism is prohibited, and repeatedly doing that will lead to a block. You might also check WP:INDENT. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully understand that calling edits vandalism when they are not is prohibited but this issue has been going on for a long time and I still don't understand what is inaccurate or erroneous about that quote, if editors have sources stating that quote is inaccurate or erroneous I would gladly acknowledge it but some people want to believe what they want to believe no matter the facts. Dalhoa (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Dalhoa, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. This edit: added extensive copyrighted material. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. ''This edit: copied other editors' work from Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) into Somalis without attribution. I have now added an edit summary with the attribution.'' IamNotU (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Literally every piece of text you have added to Wikipedia is a copyright violation. I'm sorry, but it will all have to be removed. It's great that you've been adding citations (those can stay in), and I'm sure you were only trying to help with accuracy by copying the text of the sources into the article, but that's not allowed. I can also imagine that you might be somewhat upset about this. I'm sorry that no-one explained it to you sooner. Please don't be tempted to undo the removal of the text though, as repeatedly adding copyright violations will very quickly get you blocked from editing. In some cases it's possible to include very short quotations of copyrighted material if they are clearly marked as such, see the guidelines linked above. But in general, you must always write using your own words. It is strictly prohibited by both the copyright and plagiarism policies of Wikipedia to copy and paste text from cited sources directly into the article. Again, I'm sorry if this is disappointing to you. --IamNotU (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ethiopid race. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block
Following this discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, I have extended your block to an indefinite length because you are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia but to advocate for a specific point of view, and because you have not responded to numerous previous warnings regarding edit warring, personal attacks, and copyright problems. You can appeal this block using the usual procedures. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Copying with Wikipedia
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Horn of Africa into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. ''You copied text to the Ethiopid race article in this edit:. This is the second time I've asked you to provide proper attribution as required. Please take care to do so, thank-you.'' IamNotU (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)