User talk:SuzanneOlsson/Archive 5

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How to use strike through
Suzanne, aside from the Urdu page numbers and ISBNs, you should note what BikerBiker said about WP:NPA. Your comments today on Dougweller are not acceptable (not least because he's one of the most balanced and respected editors in this field) and you should strike them, to do that you can use text < / s>. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what exactly is "unacceptable" when I look at the comments made about me here. However, I do resent that the next notice I got from Wiki (out of the blue) was to consider a ban on my website, or me, or an url, or all of it from Wiki. I thought we just got done with all that, and now he wants more?  Doug insinuated that I "might" try to insert my website as self-promotion or COI, and this is simply not true. Since that last fiasco, I haven't edited any wiki pages- I haven't added or deleted any urls on wiki pages. I hadn't even intended on returning if that notice on bans had not been brought to my attention.  I dont think this is fair, especially since you claim that Doug is such a respected editor here. I would have to disagree totally with that opinion based solely on what I've seen. Ayways....strike-out some lines? I'll try to figure out which ones are offending him...did it have something to do with bowling alleys and sports?  All the best, Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say "Doug[weller] is offended" - the issue is not Dougweller it is your edits. As an experienced admin he'd have very broad shoulders, what I said was "you should note what BikerBiker said about WP:NPA. Your comments today on Dougweller are not acceptable," not acceptable by WP:NPA. Please see WP:NPA for what is and what isn't acceptable. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to repeat- I do not believe that my edits are or ever were the problem here. Even when contributions were made by others about me, they were deleted or challenged on the assumption that I somehow arranged these. As I pointed out earlier, I was even asked for my birth certificate to prove my birthdate here on Wikipedia. I was asked for things that were unreasonable and clearly intended to demean me and remove any edits I contributed in good faith. When the dust finally settled (for a while) I remained away from Wikipedia. When I returned in mid January 2013, there was only one difference. I had acquired the domain name 'rozabal'. Nothing else had changed, except the attitude that I was somehow 'sinister' and 'suspect ... I asked those who were maintaining the Roza Bal page to consider expanding the article in view of the numerous additions to the research over the years (documentaries, et cetera). I expressed alarmed that the wording is offensive to several million Ahmaddi Muslims worldwide, and this is not the intention of Wikipedia.  Mr. Dougweller claims he is concerned about their feelings. On the other hand, he only allows comments on the page that claim the theory is fringe and crackpot. A heated discussion followed that includes accusations about local shopkeepers, fake and manufactured relics for the tourist industry, and copying Nicholas Notovich's lies (an accusation made about Holger Kersten)  Reliable and credible sources such as Fida Hassnain, former head of the entire Archaeology Division, were ridiculed and demeaned.  These kinds of comments are demeaning, insulting, and plainly not true. Instead of showing Mr. Dougweller's impartiality, such comments show a clear prejudice about this entire topic, and that's what I have objected to since the beginning.  It will be very easy for any editor to find COI with me now, since I acquired the new domain. Someone even suggested I be barred from editing anything related to religions, Christianity, bloodlines, Jesus, et cetera. Now the goal seems to be my complete removal from Wikipedia because of personal animosity between myself and DougWeller.  I want to emphasize this is being done without me having made any contributions for years, and then only minor and insignificant ones at that. I didn not check my emails past 24 hours...I will check soon and hope I have some replies to the questions you asked yesterday. I will help in any way I can if you or anyone else wants to ask questions. It is not about conflicts of interest. It is about truthfullness and fairness here at Wiki. That should be the paramount consideration.Have a nice day and  Best wishes, SueSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I felt compelled to comment here given I expressed an opinion at WP:ANI in support of a topic ban. It's worth noting, I think, that a topic ban is not the same thing as a block - you would not be allowed to edit in certain topic areas but you would be free to contribute to Wikipedia generally. The logic is that if you are truly here to build an encyclopedia (rather than simply promote your book and original research) then you should be able to find plenty of other articles to contribute to. But contrary to the suggestion that you "remained away from Wikipedia" until January 2013, you edited in 2010, 2011 and 2012, each time in relation to your own work or your co-author's work. Editors here, for example, will find it difficult to see your discription of Hassnian as "reliable and credible" as anything but promotional, given you co-authored the book of his that you think should be cited. So in effect your suggestion is, Suzanne Olsson is a reliable and credible source. That sort of thing won't be well received. Not one person at ANI has cited a conflict with DougWeller as a reason for you to be topic-banned. Not one person has opposed your being topic-banned. Perhaps its time to think about why you edit here and what you hope to achieve. Stalwart' 111 ' 02:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input Stalwart. I see the problem. First, about not returning till January 2013, I'm not sure where that came from. I dont recall that, although Ias soon as I said I would not be back. someone emailed me that I was nominated for deletion and that prompted my early return.    You asked why didn't I edit anywhere else at Wiki. I have seen errors, blatant lies, bias, and  misrepresentations on topics that I am well familiar with. I am not the expert- nor the only one with this information, but I do know right from blatantly wrong information.  That is what disturbs me so much and what I respond to.  If you are reading an article here, say it is 'Roza Bal', how would you know if something was being falsely presented unless someone corrects it? An example would be the page about Yuz Asaf. When  I was in Afghanistan I learned that 'asaph' means 'son of'...thus Yuz Asaph means son of Joseph.It does not mean 'gatherer' or 'healer of the lepers' or 'bodhisava' as presented on that page.   This isn't about self promotion of me or my book. It is about accurate reporting facts that can be checked (if you want to go to Afganistan-or read use of that word on old coins from the area). Further, people like Fida Hassnain come under attack and are belittled, and  I feel compelled to defend him. He was head of an entire Government History department long before I met him. Wouldn't 'credible and reliable' be a fair assessment? I dont understand what you are objecting to here.  (Yesterday a Wiki editor said Elain Pagels was not credible and reliable either, although she is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University and recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship,and author oif a dozen religious books and is considered an expert by the experts) If you look at the dialogue on his Hassnian's page, you will see that vandalism and personal attacks against Hassnain were the issue, not my book or inserting my web site. I asked Doug Weller to lock the page against disruptive editing. I have never done disruptive editing.. Never. Further, when students at Kashmir University created his page here (I could not because of the COI issue)  they included me. I didn't ask them and had no knowledge how their page would come out. Even the photo of Hassnain was deleted a few days ago. I provided that several years ago and Hassnain has passed that photo around asking everyone to use it as they saw fit. I even have the original. ! Yet even that small contribution from me was construed as an error of copyright. It wasn't and it is not...but it was presented as though it was as the reason for deletion. So what you and every Wiki editor is saying is that I can edit here all I want, but no one is ever allowed to mention me or my book anywhere at Wiki because I am not noteworthy, I am self-published and not credible, and every inclusion or correction or contribution I make will be viewed as a COI. As long as everyone "gets that" ..we'll be just fine. Deep sigh. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my comment about 2009-2013 was in response to your comment; "When the dust finally settled (for a while) I remained away from Wikipedia. When I returned in mid January 2013, there was only one difference". My point was that there is a record of you editing in that "gap" and so other editors are drawing attention to a 5-year-plus pattern of editing. I thought that deserved some explanation.


 * On Hassnain - I'm not suggesting he is not credible. What I'm suggesting is that you have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to Hassnain as his co-worker/co-author/friend. Given the joint work effort, promotion of him is going to be seen as promotion of you, and you promoting him is going to be seen as self-promotion. That might not be "fair", but you need to see it from the perspective of other editors. If Penn Jillette showed up here on WP and suggested Raymond Teller was an awesome magician, people would obviously see that as self-promotional. Yeah?


 * I think I good portion of the problem stems from the simple fact that Wikipedia is not about true and false or right and wrong. It's about what can be verified by reliable sources. Your editing, in many cases, seems to come from what you've learned, what you've seen, what you've experienced and who you've met and spoken to. Those are great experiences and none of that can be taken away from you. Indeed, you've done what I most often suggest to people in your situation - write a book. From my perspective, you seem like a very competent researcher and the depth of your experiences has given you an interesting perspective on subjects I have a genuine interest in (by way of example, I created and have extensively edited the Gospel of Jesus' Wife article). But original research, as has been explained, has no place on Wikipedia. Citing your own off-Wikipedia original research will still be considered original research. It's as simple as that. I'm not, for example, the author any of the sources cited at Gospel of Jesus' Wife. Stalwart 111  05:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart ..I am most grateful to you for taking the time to look deeper. Regarding Hassnain, he was under attack by some Hindu fundamentalists here at Wiki. They were inserting derogatory comments every week. For example, if an original line at his Wiki page said "He went to Ladakh and learned Tibetan"..they would change that to "He went to Ladakh and became a laughing stock of the community for his strange ideas" In another incident, they even inserted that he was accused of theft and fraud.  We traced the IP and Hassnain immediately recognized who was doing this. In fact that person had been banned from other pages for similar attacks. So I edited those remarks out when I could and constantly brought this to Doug Weller's attention.  Eventually he finally agreed to lock the page and that's hwo it was for years, until just recently. It is the same with the Roza Bal page. Doug Weller has been "in charge" of that page for years. If anyone adds even one comma, Dougweller knows immediately and changes it. He has a left Wiki readers with a page that is full of innuendos about Roza Bal. He reinforces his personal views that the entire theory is 'fringe' and 'crackpot'. If anyone says anything to the contrary, such as posting the good comments about Holger Kersten, he deletes these. I mentioned the ancient coins above. When I found out the correct translation of Yuz Asaph...this was verified by Joe Cribb, a very famous numismatic from Cambridge University. He found this title in use on coins from the Kushan era and these appear on his websites with the coin images. So I dont take credit for 'original research' here...I was able to independently confirm this was correct. No one has bothered to print such facts here. You made a good point above when you said if I defend Hassnain as a reputable scholar, I would be viewed as trying to enhance my own position.  Using this logic, if comments are made that Holger Kersten is writing " fantasy and has nothing to do with historical research.[23] Gerald O'Collins states that Kersten's work is simply the repackaging of a legend for consumption by the general public."  Then by association, this is putting down the religious beliefs of millions of Ahmaddis worldwide. It is a backhanded slap at them too.  All these years and all my conflicts I have here are not about me and links, although that is always brought up as an excuse. The problem has always been with the way DougWilliams has maintained the topics on these pages. By forbidding so much evidence (such as inclusion of the relics) he deliberately misleads people. By inserting the one negative comment about Holger Kersten and not allowing the information that he was a teacher and scholar in Germany, people get the wrong impression. I just wish more people could take the time to see that clearly. If I was here fighting with a Wiki editor over my POV or my COI,or my alleged insertion of repeated books and web page links for past 5 years. I sure am making a mess of things and if this were true, I would have been kicked ut long before now. I'm sure Doug is much too astute to let things go by this long. I could just walk away if these were the real  problems. But it isn't It never was. That's why I have fought so hard to stand up for correcting the Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf pages. This has not been easy for me to take this abuse every day at Wiki. I am usually reduced to tears every few hours.  But I am standing up for the truth, and for a few million Ahmaddiis too. I am hoping at some point DougWeller will leave the Wiki pages about Roza bal and Yuz Asaph alone..just walk away and let someone - ANYONE- with more knowledge and more respect for the topic edit the pages here. He has done a lot of damage. Now I am going to read 'The Gospel of Jesus' Wife article. Sounds very interesting! Peace and Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart, I read your article, Gospel of Jesus' Wife and found it excellent! I always wondered how/why thew Vatican was so quick to spot it as a forgery. Well done. Thank you. Sue. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed it. On Roza Bal - I imagine Dougweller would argue something quite similar, but from the opposite perspective - that he wishes such articles would be left free of original research and un-sourced claims. I understand you believe you are standing up for the truth, but as I said, Wikipedia is not about true and false. If all that can be verified by reliable sources is rumour and innuendo, then that's what the article will contain. If what you want to include can only be verified by books you have written then it probably can't be included. I respect your efforts to prevent offence to the "religious beliefs of millions of Ahmaddis", but there are plenty of things on Wikipedia that have the potential to offend millions of people. I would venture to suggest almost everyone on Earth could find something on WP that offends their beliefs. The Gospel of Jesus' Wife has the potential to offend a good number of Christians, for example. You believe you are "correcting the Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf pages" but I would imagine DougWeller would suggest them same - he is "correcting" those things about the articles that do no comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You are "correcting" those things that you believe are inaccurate, based on your many years of research. That is always going to bring the two of you into conflict. But it also makes it far more likely that other editors will side with him because those other editors are also charged with the same responsibilities as him. The simply fact of the matter is this - Wikipedia regurgitates what exists elsewhere. It's not supposed to be a place for original thought, personal opinion, recollections of personal experiences or the publishing of out-of-the-box thinking. The more your ideas are published elsewhere, the more they will begin to be published here. I think part of the problem is that you've made Wikipedia the starting-point for your efforts to "correct the record" when in reality, it should always be to "last to catch up". Stalwart 111  07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart, I have found several people in Kashmir who are going to try to locate and perhaps photograph the original document about the Rod. However, there is a lot of trouble in Kashmir this past week, streets are not safe. It is a bad time for this kind of research there...but some have come forward and are willing to help. If I could rush right over there and photograph the original, I would do that. I should have done that when I had the chance, but who can foresee days like this years later?  :-(   Anyways, have a nice weekend. Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Have a nice weekend.  Sue.


 * Well, I would caution that some editors might still have a problem with such "research", given it would obviously be difficult to verify authenticity, authorship, date, etc. I don't know the background, admittedly, but it sounds like it might be a WP:PRIMARY source rather than an independent secondary source. Regardless (if I were you), I would probably focus on the potential outcome at WP:ANI. Of course, you are within your rights to argue that your editing has not been problematic, but no one there seems to agree. So the options are - a. go down swinging but lose your right to edit those articles where you have an interest (making the finding of additional sources moot); or, b. acknowledge that a combination of WP:COI and personal belief have crept into your editing and find some compromise that allows you to continue editing. I can't promise a compromise will happen, but the community has expressed a want for your editing to change. That can happen one of two ways, and the one I think you'll be less happy with is fairly close to being implemented, I think. Stalwart 111  01:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart and all, I repeat, the links have been there for years. Sometimes I made a minor change- less than once a year or two. Recently I strongly objected to editing on the Roza Bal page that I felt was deliberately misleading and inaccurate. My position is now weakened because I acquired the domain rozabal.com. I feel I am right, at least in raising objections to the state of that page. Several  new editors here have also noticed problems and made changes that helped the page tremendously. I thank each one of you, and urge you to keep it up. You can always contact me for the latest updates.  Stalwart, if we dont have another opportunity to discuss matters here on Wiki, I take this opportunity to thank you for the time you expended and the pointers you gave me. Stay in touch- maybe I'll get to meet you and some of these editors on Facebook. That would be  much better atmosphere!   Best wishes, Sue.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)