User talk:SuzanneOlsson/Archive 3

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. This will make the discussion more transparent. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEAT
Based on this edit, I think you need to read WP:MEAT and be aware of it. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

'''==meat! ==''' History2007, I think you are going too far and making insinuations intended to deliberately obfuscate the discussions at hand. You know what? I think I'll just go ahead and write to Wikipedia, including how this all started years ago and let's see if they see the same pattern over time. Just 2 days ago, quite a lot of my contributions were deleted- where there was obviously no COI. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to see Contact us - Readers for the email address. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh that is so sweet of you to help me, Doug. Thank you.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a right to complain. Replies are handled by volunteers and I'm afraid there is a backlog so don't be surprised if there's a delay in anyone responding. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I quite understand, since all "editors" are also all volunteers from all walks of life and all kinds of backgrounds, there are bound to be conflicts. I shall be patient. Do you want a copy of the letter when I send it? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually Ms Olsson can complain to the United Nations for all I care. I know policy and I have been following it, so she may get a WP:Boomerang out of it anyway. Neither Doug nor myself are advocating our self-published books here. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if you had written something notable, or were "famous" as Doug pointed out earlier, then maybe  MAYBE your self published books could be represented here. It is very important to follow policy. The point is not policy, the point is harassment and discrimination, which has become evident through the years, determined not by COI but by what well founded contributions I have made that are also deleted, always by exactly the same person(s). SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:OR
Please do not add unsourced material to Wikipedia as you did in this edit, where you also removed sourced content which had WP:RS sources. The continued deletion of sourced content with WP:RS sources and the addition of unsourced original research and self-published items reduced encyclopedic quality and may result in a a block on your account. History2007 (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that, History2007. I did indeed check your links and I am indeed well within the Wikipedia guidelines. I am not finished with the article revisions yet...so please be patient. In a few days the article will be as polished and well done as the article abut the Talpiot Tomb. I am gathering additional photos documentary films, and references.It should be the goal of every Wiki editor to see all pages done well.

''Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Information- Definition of source

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.''

I am confident about being well within these guidelines. By the way, the link to the old TOJ site is not valid. The site crashed months ago and has not been rebuilt. When it is, I am sure someone will post a link to the new siteSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am sorry your sources are not WP:RS because you had no sources for several of your statements. What is the source for "In recent years independent researchers have continued to suggest that this is Jesus's tomb" and found "the 8 foot rod with the inscriptions"? You added no source. Some of the material seems to have come from your own book. Not a WP:RS item, and as I stated on the talk there Aziz Kashmir is not WP:RS either, as far as I can tell. You can discuss that on the talk there. On that note you need to read WP:Primary and WP:Secondary as well. And again, please read WP:Walls of text to avoid huge chunks of text as above. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Aziz Kashmiri was a scholar at Kashmir University with many puublications to his credit. Atika Sadeeq is also a well known scholar. She has both conventional published and self published to her credit.I am still working on the page. Obviously because you are so intent on shredding it, I would be super careful that no references, statements or sources point back to me as the originator. Just give it a few days and I will have it completed. Unfortuenatly I have somethign called a life that prevents me from beinng here 24-7 to quickly respond to your doubts.


 * As I said, these sources should be discussed on article talk really. Aziz Kashmiri was a small time local author and the book does not have a WP:RS publisher. It is no WP:RS source as far as I can tell. Atika Sadeeqa's book is by Booksurge (as is your book) and neither is WP:RS. Let me say this again:


 * Do not use Booksurge, or other self-published items.
 * Try to find a book by Oxford University Press and use that.


 * Is that clear? Look, by stooping down to these self-published items, you have already lost the argument. If you had Cambridge University Press on your side you might have had a prayer. Now you do not. What everyone knows is that every author hopes to get a great publisher. After the rejection letter from Princeton University Press arrives, the rejected authors go out and self-publish. Everyone knows that. Everyone. But you really need to discuss sources on article talk. History2007 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About self-publishing, I can find hundreds of examples that are allowed to rest here on Wikipedia. I will refrain from directing you to them so they too don't get harassed or deleted. Unfortunately, as you say, if very decent scholarly work is not picked up by Princeton University, many are compelled to self-publish. That is not a criteria for determining the scholarly value of a book, or its value to society. That these books were written by published scholars should be helpful in determining their value. Further, you show a prejudice against authors who are writing in languages, and from places  that you are not familiar with. You were quick to dismiss both Aziz Kashmiri and Atika Sadeeq without being able to relate to their image as scholars in India and Kashmir and other places in Central Asia. Because they usually wrote in languages more comfortable and more suitable for them such as Hindi, Urdu, and Sanskrit, and because they did not make it to mainstream America does not diminish their value or worth. It simply shows your total lack of familiarity with this topic. I would recommend that you stop insisting on only publishers like Princeton University, or many pages here at Wiki will have to be severely edited or comletely deleted. I hope that I can get at least one picture posted at the Roza bal site today. I have no idea where 'article talk' is...I have to follow the trail of links back till I find it..SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Article talk is here. And "value to society" means nothing in Wikipedia. Policies of Wikipedia are clear. You need to read WP:RS and respect those policies. They are not subject to debate. As for my insisting on reliable sources, note that I started the list of self-publishers on Wikipedia long before this, with the exact purpose of weeding them out. I was against self-publishing long before this. And Wikipedia policy is on my side. Craigslist has no such policies and may be more suitable for self-published authors. History2007 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohhh  sounds like History2007 needs some lunch!Did you weed them all out History2007? How long did that take you? Days? Weeks? Months? That must have been a very important project for you. Did Wikipedia thank you? I certainly hope so! You must be a very important editor here at Wikipedia. In that case, I will ask for your help as I make these contributions to Wikipedia...I dont know how to use all the codes. to insert pictures, to make links to sources and references. I may have known years ago, but I have to refresh my skills here.  So just bear with me as I try to make Roza Bal into a really wonderful page that even an esteemed editor as yourself would be proud of....but it must be fair and include much more information..including the Ahmaddi views about the tomb. This is critical as they are just as important as one or two lone researchers who happen to get published by Princetion. Otherwise you might be though guilty of intellectual snobbery and religious predjudices and I wont tolerate that about History2007!  No I wont.  So be sure you also understand balanced and fair reporting, even if you personally think we are all loonies.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan 2013edits lacking proper sources
In this edit you again added items such as youtube which are not WP:RS, and some more less than WP:RS sources. I will not revert you not to start an edit war, but do advise you to self-revert. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You have not reached WP:3RR at the moment, but in this edit you are beginning to approach that line. Please avoid reverting other editors, read the WP:3RR page and note that it is a "bright line rule" so if you cross it your access will be blocked, and excuses will not be accepted. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello SuzanneOlson. As an administrator I've been watching the edits at Roza Bal. Blocking of COI-affected editors is one of the possible remedies when such editors appear to be ignoring all advice about policy. Plenty of people have come to this page to raise concerns with you, but that seems to make no impression. You are expected to seek consensus for controversial changes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Long term user behavior issues
Based on the comment above, I took a quick look around, given that I had only noticed this user a few days ago after an edit to add her new website to a page and the WP:FTN post about it. Now I think it was an absolute waste of time on my part to tell her to go and read WP:RS:


 * She has been on Wikipedia for many years and was told about reliable sourcing in May 2008 by user:PaulB (Please note that he was also asking for my birth certificate to prove my age- and was deemed ridiculous by other editors-Suzanne Olsson))


 * She was also told in May 2008 not to add self-published items to Wikipedia by user:Dougweller.


 * And user:itsmejudith told her in clear terms that the Olsson book is not reliable and should not be used; but she is still using it '''(It is a personal choice to deem a book "unreliable" and clearly meant to stigmatize the author. Suzanne Olsson)

''' In fact it seems that she was editing as user:NewYork10021 in 2008, as user:PaulB noticed.

And it gets worse in that:


 * In May 2008 there is a statement by user:Fullstop that: "Not only is SuzanneOlson not following what she's quoting, she has a general lack of understanding of how WP works. (Perhaps the Wiki editors made some errors that triggered all this? Suzanne Olsson).

So multiple users have been telling her to follow policy until they have turned blue in the face and got tired of telling her that. Now, I have to tell her to go and read WP:RS again after she quoted Jimmy Wales on sourcing back in 2008 and still does not source properly? (I certainly have sourced properly. I can point to many similar examples on Wiki. Suzanne Olsson)

If she did not listen in 2008, and then in 2013, is she ever going to listen and follow policy? I think this user will be blocked out sooner or later, and in my opinion the time is now. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC) History2007.


 * I believe you are being unfair. The Wiki page about Roza Bal was begun years ago, and not by me. When I found the page, it contained many errors. At that time myself and the members of the 'Tomb of Jesus' website tried to help with contributing current and relevant information. At that time we also started an author bio page. Time after time valuable and valid information was deleted. I see that HIstory2007 tends to favor editing Christian and religious pages. The Ahmaddiis were even called a fringe crank group at one time by a Wiki editor...when in fact there are millions of Ahmadiis worldwide and everything relevant to Roza Bal is relevant to them. Roza Bal is part of their religious faith. Yet all this was edited out. The article was reduced by prejudiced editors to describing a mere building and the least amount of history in 2-4 paragraphs. I asked you all to compare it with the page about the Talpiot tomb, another tomb for Jesus, and a wiki page that is constantly updated and is exceptionally well done. At my bio page, it didn't matter who edited or what went there. It was challenged and deleted. I was even asked for my birth certificate to prove claims about my age! And so I do not have the warmest respect for Wiki editors. Doug Weller apparently has my name and ISP in a special place. When ever I post he is right there ready to challenge and delete. Yes, I did write a book about Roza bal- yes, I did just acquire the Roza Bal domain name. Of course I take a special interest in how well the page is displayed and what accurate and complete information is there. This is no COI...it it common sense! Someone in California whom I dont know and only met once or twice on the Internet wanted to contribute something positive- purely on his own because he was interested in the topic. As soon as he posted my name he too was shot down and his contributions deleted. I am not a warm fuzzy person,. I feel ready to challenge every Wiki editor who enters this fruckas..when I see examples all over the Internet of others making contributions, referencing self-published books, "advertising" themselves by inserting links to their material, and even when I make editors here aware of it...they are ignored and I am challenged. That's why I take this so personally. You are not being fair. My name is Suzanne Olsson. I wrote a book about religious conflicts, cultural terrorism, Jesus survival of crucifixion, the name Yuz Asaf, his demise and burial at Roza Bal tomb. The book also includes a lot of genealogy and DNA info. There are probably dozens of relevant pages here at Wiki where my book could have been used as reference. It isn't a totally worthless book and I truly resent inferences from people like Doug and History2007 that something is "wrong" with me or my book. I spent ten years in that region gathering info. I came out with a lot of new previously unknown info that historians were grateful for...before it's all gone, destroyed by fundamentalists. There are clear reasons why I could not, and did not get a mainstream publisher- two of those reasons involve direct lifting of my copyright material by other authors who did mainstream publish. I could not get a publisher in the USA after that (although I do have a publisher in India that I am reluctant to use), and I even began a lawsuit against one of those authors. I had to drop that when lawyers wanted to hold title to my home  for additional  legal fees. I am self-published. That is better than not published at all. Last week I returned to Wiki to correct a bad link that had previously been left alone for several years. As soon as I did that, Doug Weller tried to delete that entry and challenged me on everything again. The fact is that link was already there, and had been for years.  The link to the TOJ website is also a dead link. I am reluctant to remove it or make corrections..that is usually done by the TOJ staff,  of course their contributions around the internet are NOT regarded as conflict of interest by you, although I, a Christian was also once the Vice President of that Ahmaddi group. That's how I figured out you are not being fair, and it is my name only that is drawing your attention.  I made the decision to stand up to this abuse and discrimination. You are editors, people who may have been truck drivers and lemonade sellers in your private lives. Some of you are clearly prejudiced and discrimination. I do stand up to that kind of ridiculousness. Thank you. Have a nice day.  Sue. (Above posted by Suzanne Olsson)


 * I really don't know what to tell you. For half a decade (yes, half a decade) user after user has been telling you not to use your self-published book on Wikipedia. Now on Jan 29, 2013 you are still arguing for its use in Wikipedia. This is as clear a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as one can get. That is all I can say. History2007 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Roza Bal, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. ''The BBC YouTube link is clearly copyvio. And as we assume copyright, the Indian documentary has been removed until it can be shown to be definitely copyright free or an official site used as a link.'' Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

New York Times Acceptance of Self- Published Books ''Drawing distinctions purely on the way that a book has been published now says more about the person making the comparison than the books they are comparing. The best of self-publishing can compete on equal terms with the best of traditional publishing''  I will have to check with Yashendra, the film producer in India. I know there was some conflict, but I thought it was resolved. I am also unaware of copyright conflict with the BC- There are so many links on the Internet to these films, Thank You for checking. We need to find the legitimate links!. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

World attitudes may one day change Wikipedia policy. When policy changes, then those issues can be discussed. But Wikipedia policy has not changed. When it does that is a separate matter, but even discussing it would be shades of WP:CRYSTAL in some sense. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And we have articles on individual self-published books because they were best-sellers and covered widely in the mainstream press. You can always ask at WP:RSN if you want to argue that a certain self-published book is a reliable source. And if a world famous expert published a book - in their field of expertise - that would be ok also. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I often say that Milton Friedman could have written something on a paper napkin and it could have been RS. But in general, one can not just accept self-published items at large. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, as the article about the NY Times makes clear, attitude toward self-published books is a personal call, saying more about the person making the call. You have already displayed your personal predjudices in this regard by allowing more compliant- less authoritative authors self-published fiction books to remain. I understand perfectly where you are coming from. Due to time difference between East Coast and India,I cannot contact India until after midnight tonight. I am doing best I can. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Which books are these? And why haven't you removed them? Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why Doug, haven't you been following? I have pointed some out and raised the same questions. I was told they were "great" writers who attained some degree of public notoriety, while I was somewhere down there with Craig List editors and writers, or perhaps even lower than whale doodoo. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So no answer? You don't make it easy to follow, walls of text, formatting problems, etc. But if you won't name them, there's no need to take this complaint seriously. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed the complete removal of my book and links....I did not place those here originally. I returned recently to update a link I noticed that had been there for years. It pointed to my website. This is not COI, but normal maintenance, especially if the link had been there for several years ... You are exhibiting extreme prejudice and unfairness.You are even changing what has formerly remained for several years. You are being mean and spiteful. It has nothing to do with COI.We have been through this before .I have replaced the links. Please leave them alone. This is just plain harassment and discrimination on your part,  animosity that now spans five years and is always initiated by Doug Weller.  Of course you bring other editors in t support your views, but there are as many editors who will not.You are making personal and spiteful decisions. Didn't we have a mediator several years ago? And wasn't it decided to leave these links? I thhink I will have to seek mediation again to resolve this issue again. I am looking into that right now. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I came to your talk page, but see it has already been said. History2007 and Dougweller are just making mainstream edits. If you want to add something useful to the article please do so from mainstream print sources. It could for example do with one glaring obvious hole filled. Who do the local Sunnis say Yuz Asuf is? What are their sources for believing it to be a muslim holy man? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ictu oculi>1 Corinthians 15:52: In momento, in ictu oculi, in novissima tuba (in the blink /twinkling of an eye). The question about local business men starting a rumor about Yuz Asaf is simply not true. The local caretaker made up that story in front of news cameras, including the Government of India film Board. He changed his stories often. He threatened local film crews with violece if they returned. It was a bad situation. Several film crews have this filmed.. There are huge undercurrents due to the animosity between Sunni, Shia, and Ahmaddi Muslims. Ahmaddis are considered heretical outcasts from mainstream Islam. If they see Jesus is buried in Roza Bal, then local Sunni/Shia business men will deny this, mock the claims, and even attempt to destroy the tomb in their hatred for Ahmaddis. Thus the tomb is on a delicate tightrope. On the one hand it generates huge profits for just 5 men who control it. On the other hand it goes against their Sunni religious beliefs, and so they must appear to maintain the tomb even as they desecrate it and destroy evidence. That is why it is important to seek out and include any info prior to founding of the Ahmaddis in 1889. What drew the founder to conclude that Jesus was buried in Roza Bal? What evidence suggested Jesus was Yuz Asaf before then?Another thing that appears often and is simply not true is the meaning of "Yuz Asaf". it does not and never has meant 'the gatherer'..It means 'son of Joseph' and this is quite clear in ancient Persian writings. That is how the term asaf is used. Gondopharnes had a son known as Gundasaf. I have to find the sources, but this is exactly how the term is used is Farsi and Dari and Pashtu. I cannot thank you all enough for bringing the Roza Bal page up to higher standards. I will do anything I can to help you obtain substantiating references, photos, or additional info. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)
 * I was just contacted by someone who read the revised "Roza Bal' article. It is clearly meant to persuade a reader that it is a fantasy with no merit. Because the significant relics, plus matters relating to the historicity of the tomb, such as the Court case in the 1700's, have been omitted, the intention from the slant of the article is to mislead the reader and denigrate the tomb and its research. Further proof is that self-published fiction, such as 'The RozaBal Line' is mentioned, whilst more reliable first hand research is omitted. This further substantiates the bias of the editors. However, it is a start and certainly an improvement over its previous version. There are relics and photos and much more literature that could have, and one day will be included. There is certainly more substantiation for this tomb of Jesus than even for the Talpiot Tomb in Jerusalem. I might add that many scholars think James Tabor and Simon Jacobovici are mad archaeologists who are wishful thinking, using spotty and poor research to build their cases.This is mentioned a their Wiki site. Once the relics from Roza Bal are included in this article, it will not be so misleading and the historical basis for the claims can be more clearly understood by readers and researchers. As it stands now, the article appears biased and is missing valuable and relevant information. However, I thank God for small favors and trust that other editors will continue to arrive here, take an interest, and build on the article. I have not got reply back from India yet. Soon as I know the correct link to their film, I will provide it for you. Again, my thanks to those who got it this far. I am grateful to you. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)