User talk:GuinanTheListener

Welcome!

Hello, ForTheCulture1863, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! - AwfulReader^(talk) 09:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tikar people, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and French. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for the correction. I'll make those adjustments. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello ForTheCulture1863! Your additions to Tikar people 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. 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.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
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 either 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I definitely understand. I shouldn't have published yet, so that was an error in judgement on my part. I was slowly working my way through all the information I've gathered and making adjustments as I went along. I'll be more careful in the future. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hi ForTheCulture1863! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the info! I'll keep that in mind moving forward. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tikar people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! I was unaware and stopped when it was brought to my attention. I will be removing the content until I gather all of the scholarly sources that back up the claim of Sudanese origin as credible. GuinanTheListener (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but no, you didn't, since you reverted after this, and after you were notified of the ANI thread. Please let it stop here. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reverting after you all responding to my comment and the discussion began. My initial comment, where I state that I was adding back the content, was the first time I actually saw the comment notifications. I wasn't refusing to reply. I wasn't aware there was actually a talk page nor a ANI thread until that moment. I'm new to wikipedia and didn't know user conversations and discussions were even possible. But I'm learning. All's good. GuinanTheListener (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* after you all responded to my comment and the discussion began

GuinanTheListener (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skllagyook, I don't see why one of the US's major news outlets can't be trusted to accurately report a scientist's words. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. The NBC source I removed does not, as far as I can tell, quote a scientist as stating that the Bamileke or Tikar people originated in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Ancient Egypt. It concerns the dna evidence that an African American descends from the Tikar, and then repeats beliefs regarding their origins in those places without citing and contemporary scholarship to support the claims.Skllagyook (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the additional contemporary scholarship by historians and anthropologists I've cited all say the say thing, which is that they are uncertain. I cite in the debate section. I will be re-adding what you removed due to that fact. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which contemporary historians and anthropologists say that, where, and what are they uncertain about? If you want to add statements they need to be reliably sourced (to WP:RS that explicitly support them. And if it is true that historians are uncertain about the origins of the Tikar, that does not constitute support for the theory that they are from Arabia or Egypt, unless those scholars explicitly argue for that. It would only support the statement that their specific origins are unknown (if that is what the sources say). Also, please do not add back disputed material until a WP:CONSENSUS has been reached, here, at ANI, or in the article's Talk page. Adding back disputed material without consensus would be edit warring. Skllagyook (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this in the most respectful way, I believe you are overlooking a very critical aspect of researching African ethnic groups: Oral Tradition. Every ethnic group does not write their history. This is why I am very intentional and careful with my word choice in the Debate section as well as the article as whole. The 5 leading researchers of the Tikar people and the people of Adamawa Region, who are cited throughout the article, all come to a common consensus: they don't know. They literally can't even agree amongst themselves because the Tikar people are one of the very few people in the world whose history lies completely on the stories of the Elders. I understand looking that this from a scholastic point-of-view. I do. However, you must look at it culturally as well. Even David Zeitlyn, the of those 5 researcher, says this constantly in his research. I quoted him in the Debate section for that very reason. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

looking at this from a purely scholastic point-of-view ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reinstatement of a disputed edit during a discussion is edit warring. I request that you undo it until consensus is reached. The scholars you cited do not seem to state that the theory of an Arabian origin for the Tikar is credible, and you seem to have stated that even within the oral tradition there is disagreement. As I understand the rules of Wikipedia, we edit based on scholarly/scholastic sources. Presenting an unsupported claim as more credible and mainstream than it is would be WP:UNDUE. Skllagyook (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It wasn't my intention to start an edit war. However, the scholars I cite say that don't the origin according to oral tradition is not credible. All they say on the matter is that they can't disregard the claim. If I state that fact by scholars and the theory, along with a credible source, how is that a violation of the rules of Wikipedia? From what I've read, theories can be cited as long as the uncertainty is listed (which I do multiple times on the page) with a credible source. It's also worth noting that this is actually a very mainstream claim in the field, as well as amongst historians in Cameroon. I respect everyone's opinions on this discussion. I really do. But removing the oral tradition of an African people, when the specific oral tradition is cited, seems disingenuous. It appears like an attempt to hide information. If scholars are saying they can't discount the theory, why can't that be mentioned along with the theory? The 5 leading researchers of the Tikar people admit that they don't know where the Tikar originated in their research, but that the Arabian origin and Mbum origins can't be discounted. That uncertainty is still apart of scholastic research, correct? Why can't it be included? ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked on the ANI page (it might be better to continue the discussion there), I think it would be helpful to name the scholars that say what you have described above and where they say it (sources, page numbers, etc.). Also, in the "History" section, you did not (that I could see) mention uncertainty. In your edit, the claims seemed to be presented as though they were mainstream and uncontested. Skllagyook (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the ANI page. ForTheCulture1863 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed the updated information with the new source. The NBC article was not the only cited source. I linked that for additional information about Tikar origins. A official website of the Tikar people, which quotes their oral tradition of the Arabian peninsula as a possible origin place was cited. In the update, I also reinforce that the Nile, specifically the Sudan, is the more widely accepted origin. Is there a reason you removed that information? GuinanTheListener (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this site (https://onetikaronepeople.org/tikar-%26-bamileke-history), I removed it because it is not a scholarly source and is not sourced to one. Therefore it does not seem to be a reliable source (WP:RS) on such an academic/historical/anthropological topic. If you can find reliable scholarly sources (preferably contemporary/relatively recent - since older sources on African history were often influenced by the now fringe and highly problematic Hamitic hypothesis) by relevant experts giving credence to the view, then they should be admissible. Skllagyook (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue. In many West African cultures, there's no issue finding sources because they were more in contact with Europeans. That's not the case with most Central African peoples. They often shun outsiders due to their private nature, so their oral traditions are the main references to their history. Solely believing a scholar who writes about a people rather than the actual people who've created a site with their oral traditions seems slightly problematic. The new edit was very intentionally stated that the Arabian Peninsula origin story was solely rooted in oral tradition and mentioned that it was a debated belief, so I believe we also have to look at the cultural ramifications of omitting their oral traditions simply because a Western scholar hasn't focused more indepth on their culture. Is there a compromise you are willing to accept? GuinanTheListener (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aunt Caroline Dye has been accepted

Aunt Caroline Dye, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! GuinanTheListener (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re recent additions to Bamileke people

Regarding your recent Additions to the Bamileke people page, I have begun a topic on the Talk page. Hopefully we can discuss the issue. Here is the link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bamileke_people#The_claim_of_Egyptian_origin Skllagyook (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello GuinanTheListener! Your additions to Kongo religion 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. 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.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
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 either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]