The

Adventure

Hi Andajara120000!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bantu peoples ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kongo, SADC, Kwacha, Yao, Shona, Swazi, EAC, Luba, Zulu, Sotho, Teke, Ndebele, Loti, Kalanga, Bemba, Makua, Bubi, Tswana, Chewa, Sukuma, Kikuyu, Luhya, Punu, Ovambo and Xhosa

Ubuntu (philosophy) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bantu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I noticed you added a bit on the economy of the Americas then self-reverted. I thought it was a good idea, so I added the CIA factbook GDPs to the country table for the countries (and territories where it was listed). I'm planning on searching out the rest, but could certainly use help if you're interested. (Heck, the article is in desperate need to editors whose interests extend beyond what it should be called). If you need any help, please feel free to ask me. Wily D 10:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much! I wasn't sure if GDP was included in continent articles. I will definitely turn to that as soon as I get a chance, I am very interested in beefing up information on each of the major continents and sub-regions of the world, especially the economic info. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 05:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

West Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wolof and Soninke

Bubi people ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bantu

Mbeere language ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kikuyu

Meru people ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kikuyu

Mijikenda peoples ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Digo

Tutsi ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hima

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rhapta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Rhapta''' was a [[marketplace]] on the coast of [Southeast Africa], which first rose to prominence in the 1st century CE. Its location has not yet been firmly

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Ancient Egyptian race controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller ( talk) 22:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Please use the talk page before further reversions. I am trying to engage you in a discussion on the talk pages of each article as to why you are reverting and deleting sourced material. Thank you. Regards Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC) I have opened up discussions on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Talk:Population history of Egypt and Talk:DNA history of Egypt on this issue regarding the sources and added the reference to the peer-reviewed study it is based on http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393. As there are now two peer-reviewed studies, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 and Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012 on this issue referenced on all three articles there should be no further problems. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I was looking at you changes to an article on my watch list, Prehistoric North Africa. I hadn't noticed before that the article has never had a proper lead. In fact, I think it had a bad start - the first edit was this which was unattributed (in the article though not in the edit summary) copy/paste from [1] - I've found the actual page [2] which I note is restricted to 'central North Africa'. I need to find out how to attribute that correctly, but that's another issue. The problem I'm hoping you can help with is the lead. I don't actually understand what you've written there, but the lead in any case should be a summary of the article following our guideline at WP:LEAD. It would be helpful if you could write a new one. Thanks.

Good work on replacing animism by the way. Dougweller ( talk) 10:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I will try my best! I have been very busy trying to fill in as many holes as possible regarding African history and culture on Wikipedia- a major undertaking of course! I have focused on North Africa, West Africa, Sub-Equatorial Africa and Middle Africa, and due to the diversity of peoples and languages and the diversity of African Traditional Religion to African Philosophy, African Languages, Ancient and Modern History, Regional Organizations. My most major and recent undertaking has been with African Philosophy I would love some other eyes on that too! I am thinking I should join one of the Wikipedia Africa project groups. Do you have any recommendations on the best one to start with? I only started this month so do not actually know very much about how different projects work and how to join. but hope to be involved in the long haul in contributing to as many African articles as I can. And yes in regards to the animism work- filling in holes regarding African Traditional Religion has also been a major undertaking: do you know if there is a Wikipedia project specifically on African Traditional Religion or how I could create one if there is not? I made some inroads on the Religion article in having African Traditional Religion considered as a separate section but it seems like it might be overwhelming to tackle the entire subject alone. There doesn't seem to be a lot of work/interest on African Traditional Religion and the African Diasporic Religions on Wikipedia...yet :) Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 10:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

In particular it still surprises me to see the confusion/elision between the traditional healing practices of African Traditional Religion and divination and its use for more nefarious purposes against others in many of the articles regarding African Traditional Religion. Anyone with experience (as either a benefactor or target of these practices)of courses knows how vast the differences are! Some major articles I would need to tackle are Vodun, Witchcraft (its section on Africa), Thakathi, Inyanga, Witch Doctor, Witch Children in Africa etc. It is amazing how negatively many traditional African practices (like in Europe and the Americas with Wicca) are still portrayed in some of the Wikipedia articles that are based on very outdated sources/views on religion. The monotheism-centered take on religion has been countered in many of the articles on the Indian religions but much work still remains to be done on religious traditions from other regions. I really hope to start a Wikipedia Project on African Traditional Religion so many of these matters can be cleared up. Any advice on how to do so (or if there already is one!) would be much appreciated. Would you like to join such a project? Do you have any background knowledge on or experiences with such traditional African practices? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 10:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Not really my field and I don't have the time for old projects let alone new ones. Talk:Traditional African religion lists 3 projects, ask on their talk pages as they all seem relevant. Also look to see who has been editing the article and its talk page and ask them. Very minor point, see WP:INDENT to see how to indent on talk pages. It looks like you will be filling a big hole! Dougweller ( talk) 11:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you kindly! I will get right to that. I still have much to learn, thank you for your guidance. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 11:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

See my latest edit there, you need to be careful not to present opinion as fact. Dougweller ( talk) 10:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you!I will definitely work on improving that. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 17:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Don't you think that there should be one? Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, most definitely! I will search on how to make one as I am new to this. Does one need permission to make one or can one just make one? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 05:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Give me few minutes, I will be back to you shortly. For now, just remember that there are over 100 million followers of African traditional, so it's notable. Bladesmulti ( talk) 06:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Certainly no rush. I am very grateful: I am looking forward to expanding as much as I can on the topic on Wikipedia since as you noted there are so many followers. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 07:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Just made one, Check Template:Traditional African religion, obviously it needs a lot of changes/improvement, but we have just started. Bladesmulti ( talk) 10:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

So beautiful- many thanks! Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Without WP:Edit summaries it is often impossible to understand why an edit was made. I've reverted your edits at [[Bornu Empire], as you removed a clearly reliable source, you removed 'Muslim Empire' with no explanation and you removed List of Sunni Muslim dynasties although it is on that list. I don't understand any of this. Perhaps you need to use Talk:Bornu Empire now to explain what you've done. Dougweller ( talk) 07:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, I wasn't sure what the requirements were to be placed on that list-I assumed it meant it must be a sultanate or caliphate or otherwise it would be a list of all the empires or kingdoms that may or may not have had a ruler that was Muslim which would be absurd. I know one of the lists gives some guideline (I can't remember which one) of a majority population or where Islamic law was used or something of that sort but I will go back to that and see if I can articulate that and I'll check to see what the rules for inclusion on both lists are and confirm that they meet the requirements or not. I'll try to make sure to use the WP:Edit summaries in the future when making such changes so the thinking is set forth. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 08:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I think a Muslim empire is one ruled by Muslims, the population doesn't have to be mainly Muslim. I've fixed your indent, too many colons. Dougweller ( talk) 09:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Being a bit slow here. We also need to reflect what sources say about this empire. Dougweller ( talk) 09:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay that sounds good. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 11:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Demographics of Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sara, Zande, Kalenjin, Bantu, Songhai, Gbaya, Shilluk, Zaghawa, Nuer and Kanuri

Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sara, Zande, Songhai, Gbaya, Shilluk, Zaghawa, Nuer and Kanuri

Central Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sara, Zande, Gbaya, Shilluk, Zaghawa, Nuer and Kanuri

Bantu peoples ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bulu, Maka and Hima

Ethnic groups in Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sara language, Sara and Kanuri

African philosophy ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Akan and Dogon

Ancient Egyptian race controversy ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ramesses and European

Indian Ocean Commission ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reunion

Islam in Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congo

Languages of Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bantu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Andajara120000. I don't think that Rhapta was actually a Bantu settlement. Based on the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the area's inhabitants, the Azanians, would appear to have been an early Cushitic-speaking group who lived there prior to the Bantu and Nilotic migrations' southeastern reach. They seem to have been gradually absorbed over time by the newcomers, and had essentially disappeared by the Middle Ages [3]. What do you make of this? Best regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 15:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

By the way, nice work on Fula et al. Let me know if you need help with anything. Cheers, Middayexpress ( talk) 15:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, I think including a diversity of perspectives is great- the more sources the better, so if you could summarize that research and include that as well that would be great. And yes, I am trying to do some work on African Traditional Religion, Islam in Africa and Christianity in Africa and am hoping to begin an Atheism in Africa article -do you have any particular background on any of these topics? For the latter I was going to include a fair bit about Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Somalia-I see you did some editing on that page about her. The Atheism in Africa article is my top priority as of now so any thoughts would be welcome. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 22:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I have started the page on Irreligion in Africa and would love your thoughts. I was next hoping to include a summary on the special influence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Somalia in particular and would love any of your thoughts on that as I saw you did some editing on the main page of her article. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC) I also created an Irreligion in Somalia article that may be of some interest to you. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The irreligion page for Somalia is an undue WP:FORK, as there are only a handful of irreligious individuals in the country. The overwhelming majority of people in Somalia are Muslim (~99%), with the remainder mainly Christian as well as a few adherents of traditional religions [4]. Ali also hasn't lived in Somalia since she was a child, so she is not representative of the religious adherents there much less on the continent at large. The atheist Leo Igwe, who was born and raised in Nigeria, is more appropriate for the main page. Additionally, it is not true that "during the Siad Barre regime in the 1950s and 1960s atheism was more widespread in the country", nor does the source claim this. All it indicates is that "Siad could not square his people's strong Muslim beliefs with Moscow's prescriptive atheism" [5]. What Barre actually did was attempt to reconcile the official state religion (Islam) with the official state ideology (Marxism) by adapting Marxist precepts to local circumstances. Regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 12:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello please use the talk page for Irreligion in Somalia before blanking the page again (you have done so twice now). There is a talk page discussion begun there. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The disussion should be on the main page Religion in Somalia, not the fork you created. I've moved it there. Also, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who tries to add the material (i.e. you), not me. Regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Interesting. Well I will discuss it there then. Here is the information on Siad Barre: Mohamed Haji Mukhtar, Historical Dictionary of Somalia (2003), pp. 40-41, books.google.com/books?isbn=0810866048: "In addition, the adoption of "scientific socialism" by the military government and the signing of the friendship agreement with the Soviet Union in the 1970a brought Somalia into conflict with the wealthier and conservative Arab states. Also, Orthodox Arabs were shocked by Mohamed Siad Barre's execusion of 10 imams who preached against his secularism in 1975." See more on that discussion. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Barre executed the imams because they belonged to the same clan that was leading the dissenters against his regime, not due to atheistic considerations. Ironically, a group of military officials from the same clan tried to overthrow him only a few months later, so he was not imagining things. Regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 13:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Interesting, that seems plausible too. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 15:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding more categories for Irreligion in Africa I hope you don't mind the additions and alterations I made. Dwanyewest ( talk) 00:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, thank you for anything you can add! I am new to this so I know there are many things I might be missing. I hope to eventually have a page for Irreligion in each of the African countries-I think I saw you started most of the ones now in existence and I will continue to model them on those! Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 01:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

If you are gonna write more information here is some info you might use.

A Gallup poll shows that the irreligious comprise 20% in South Africa, 16% in Botswana, 13% in Mozambique, 13% in Togo, 12% in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire, 10% in Ethiopia and Angola, 9% in Sudan, Zimbabwe and Algeria, 8% in Namibia and 7% in Madagascar https://worldview.gallup.com/default.aspx

• Religion in Mozambique

Mozambique atheism

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/10/world/maputo-journal-in-marx-s-garden-atheism-wilts-faith-blooms.html

• Religion in Botswana below is the census results.

http://www.cso.gov.bw/index.php?option=com_content1&id=2&site=census

I hope you can get some use out of this information. Dwanyewest ( talk) 01:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I definitely will use this information, it is very useful! Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 02:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Atheism in Africa should be redirected to Irreligion in Africa. Dwanyewest ( talk) 02:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you, yes I agree, I will make sure to properly make the redirect. I think in some countries "irreligion" is less commonly used than "atheism" even though atheism falls under irreligion so making sure the redirect works is key-because od that I might also try to do redirects for each of the individual Atheism in [country] articles to. Thank you! Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 02:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia has a template to show the correct method to cite material for your irreligion in Africa articles. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Examples

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citing_sources

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_style

Dwanyewest ( talk) 03:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 04:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Looks like there's huge account regarding the persecution of these followers.. Don't know why it's not highlighted yet, you think it should be? Found many interesting readings, [6], [7]. There can be a page about it, if deeply observed. What you think. Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, that is a great idea! It is sad how little attention has been paid to the persecution of African Traditional Religion adherents over the years. And I am sure there will be a lot of resources for this issue as well. I will dig for some too. That is definitely a wonderful idea. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Given a try User:Bladesmulti/Persecution of African Traditional Religion, you are welcome to contribute. Thanks. Bladesmulti ( talk) 17:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Its a page now, see Persecution of Traditional African Religion. Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Many thanks, that looks great! Can't wait to start adding to it! Regards, ` Andajara120000 ( talk) 05:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Andaraja, you make a lot of interesting edits on wikipedia. It is very appreciated. But you seem to change the expression 'East Africa' for 'Southeast Africa' systematically in many of your edits without regards to the sources or even subject matter. Most of the time, your edits are not appropriate because the expression Southeast Africa under-represent or misrepresent the countries involve in the wikipedia articles/statements you edited. Southeast Africa exclude East African countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Eritrea, etc, and those countries are often involved in the matter of discussion in the article. For example, you edited out East Africa on the Arab slave trade page: The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab world, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, Southeast Africa, and certain parts of Europe . But in reality, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc were also involved in the Arab slave trade. This is one of the many examples, I noticed. It would be appreciated if you change East Africa to Southeast Africa only if it is stated by the reliable sources. Otherwise thank you for your good work. DrLewisphd ( talk) 02:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure-I guess in that case it might be good to separate it into Southeast Africa and the Horn of Africa because they had very distinct histories in regards to the Arab slave trade. There was very little slaving of Southeast Africa until the 18th and 19th century and most of those slaves were procured by Oman under the Zanzibar sultanate. I have less knowledge of the slave trade from the Horn of Africa but that occurred much earlier, before the rise of Islam (that is why Bilal was known as al-Habashi). So it might make sense to separate it into Southeast Africa and Horn of Africa for clarity. Using the very broad "East Africa" may elide the differences of these two histories, but I apologize for changing East Africa to Southeast Africa without also adding the Horn of Africa (which I have less knowledge of). Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 02:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not a problem. Many of your edits are more than welcome. But, it's important to say that it's not only on that occasion. There's a lot of cases, in many if not most of your edits, where the systematic change does not apply. Do you understand that you can't systematically change East Africa to Southeast Africa without reliable sources to back it up? I just want to make sure you don't do that systematically in the future without using reliable sources to back the change. DrLewisphd ( talk) 02:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am definitely making a systematic effort to change east Africa to southeast Africa as appropriate on any articles related to Africa. I am trying to be careful when I am making the change to make sure it does not cause confusion, only changing it to southeast Africa when it only applies to Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda or Burundi as opposed to the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti), but of course please correct any errors I may make in that process. I admit I can sometimes be a bit bold in my edits but will try to be more careful in the future. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

And thank you for pointing this out-I was planning to go back to the article to clarify some things I think were omitted regarding the different chronologies and extent of the slave trade from the Horn of Africa (which was the earlier pre-Islamic trade) versus Southeast Africa (which was after Islam and after the Bantu migration). I will try to do some editing later as well. Here are some points in case you wanted to do some editing, there are a number of references to this as well: The elision of the distinct histories of the Arab slave trade of Southeast Africa and the Horn of Africa is problematic because of two reasons: (1) It elides the long-standing historical connections between the Horn of Africa and Arabia which are extremely significant within the early history of the Horn of Africa (development of Habesha people, D'mt, Aksum, Semitic languages in the Horn of Africa, colonization of Horn of Africa by people from Yemen, then the reverse, subsequent colonization of the Yemen by people from the Horn of Africa) and the early history of Islam (the first Hijra to the Horn of Africa by early Muslims); (3) It confuses the chronology because the Bantu migration coincided much with the increased slaving from Southeast Africa-we have to be careful with the dates that we put around the slaving of Bantu peoples because they are relatively recent arrivals in much of Southeast Africa; It elides the long-standing historical connections between Oman and Southeast Africa (Zanzibar sultanate, development of the Swahili communities, development of the Swahili states). These are very distinct histories with different chronologies and legacies. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) I think some good sources to use for a section expanding on this would be (1) studies on pre-Islamic Arabia (for the slave trade from the Horn of Africa); (2) studies on the first 100 years of Islam (for the slave trade from the Horn of Africa); (3) studies on Oman and the histories of Kenya and Tanzania and the development of the Swahili language and Swahili states (for the slave trade from Southeast Africa); and (4) Genetic studies of Yemeni people (for the slave trade from Horn of Africa and later from Southeast Africa) and other Arab people (for the slave trade from Southeast Africa). I also think there should be a better differentiation in the article between the 'Arab slave trade' and the 'Trans-Saharan slave trade' which often coincided. There is really a lot of work that must be done on increasing the accuracy of the articles about pre-Atlantic Slave Trade slavery in Africa and the above are just a few of my perspectives of ways to tackle it. It is not really my area of interest but I will try to do some editing of at least the Arab slave trade article in the future. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 03:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I modified your edit: 'Mozambique in Southeast Africa' on the Islam in Africa page since Mozambique is not part of Southeast Africa. DrLewisphd ( talk) 03:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ok thank you. And I have made a systematic effort to expand Wikipedia coverage of Middle Africa since the independence of South Sudan in 2011 as the history of this very important region has been systematically swept aside due to the confusion between Central Africa and Middle Africa. If you could please look at the Middle Africa article before making more changes that would be great. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 05:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

For example in the Demographics of Africa article you have now completely deleted references to the historically important Sara, Zande, and Gbaya people of Middle Africa as well as deleted references to the Songhai and Zarma people. I am sure you are trying to be helpful but I think you should be more careful in your editing. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 05:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC) You have also restored the error of Luhya being a Nilo-Saharan language and deleted references to other peoples as well. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, Andajara120000. You have new messages at Talk:Southeast Africa.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{ Help me}} a user, AcidSnow seems to be stalking my wikipedia edits in order to delete them. Please see Southeast Africa and Middle Africa. He has threatened to do the same with Islands of Africa. I can understand a difference of opinion regarding the definitions of the articles and regions of Africa but that seems to be a reason to edit the page and expand or detract the coverage of the articles and not wholesale delete, but this seems a concerted effort to vandalize every effort I have made on Wikipedia. I feel very much under siege and like not even editing Wikipedia anymore. I believe I have made positive additions to Wikipedia but am feeling very disconcerted. How do I report this and is this allowed on Wikipedia? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 02:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Please see Talk:Southeast Africa: "Ok, something should also be done about the Islands of Africa page since there really is no need for this too. What do you think DrLewisphd? AcidSnow (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) " Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

You need help of editors of the subject - any uninvolved editor will have no knowledge and will not know who is correct. Your choice is either go to Dispute Resolution or maybe better to raise the issue at the Wikiproject first Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Africa - editors here should have some initial understanding about the country. Nothing ever dies in Wikipedia - any editor can move a page back to a previous version in seconds, so there's never a rush - rushing just starts an edit war, then everyone gets blocked.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

If he has used your real name on that talk page - then let me know  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay thank you very much, sorry I mistyped about facebook that is actually not involved at all. But I will use the dispute resolution page. Thank you very much for your rapid help and attention. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 02:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I never said I was going to delete the Island page. "since there really is no need for this too", I requested it to be merged it with the list of African Islands page. I am sorry if you thought I was going to do so. I even requested that we wait to get your opinion on this and on Southeast Africa before we did anything. I also never deleted Southeast Africa; I removed duplicated information from it that is already ALL stated on the East Africa page. AcidSnow ( talk) 04:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay fine we obviously have differing viewpoints regarding the definitions of various regions of Africa. In terms of Middle Africa since another editor blanked that page and redirected it to Central Africa I have begun migrating that Middle Africa info to the Central Africa page--I mean I am only trying to improve the articles about Africa on this Wikipedia. I am going to assume good faith on your part as required by wikipedia so let us continue our discussions about this issue on the respective talk pages of Islands of Africa, Southeast Africa and Central Africa. Please just be careful with your statements because that statement about Islands of Africa really alarmed me and I began to feel like you were stalking my Wikipedia edits in order to vandalize any changes I made, even if they were well-referenced or constructive. It is okay to have differences of opinion and be passionate about them but I was starting to feel under siege. Let us continue working together on the talk pages of these various articles. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 09:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Demographics of Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Banda language and Masalit

Middle Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Banda language and Mbang

Acholi people ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Luo

African people ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Masalit

Anuak people ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Luo

Ethnic groups in Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Banda language

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please leave the page as it was before your contested edits until there is consensus on what changes should be made. Tobus ( talk) 10:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

What is contested about edits with half a dozen references each? In any case please answer my questions on the talk page then, I am attempting to engage you in conversation. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 10:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC) reply

May I kindly suggest that you use the preview button before saving your edits, so that in an article's history it won't have so many edits under your name. See the Ancient Egyptian Race controversy history for the numerous edits that I'm describing. Rod ( talk) 18:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay, thank you. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 19:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. P.S. I see that you have been warned and given notices for your disruptive behavior multiple times by multiple contributors. I would like to remind you that you cannot delete specific content just because it goes against your ideology, add unsourced or non-factual content to support your ideology, or otherwise tamper with an article. Also, it is suggested that you summarize your edits in the edit summery, instead of adding "edited for accuracy", like I see in most of your edit summaries. This helps other editors know what exactly you did in your edit, and can make things much easier for all editors involved. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, which articles are you referring to? I have performed over 3000+ edits within the last month contributing significantly to a diverse range of African articles so if you could pinpoint some specific articles in regards to the above that would be helpful. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, I haven't gone through all of your recent edits to check what you've been doing, but currently I notice that you are disrupting the articles DNA history of Egypt, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and Black Egyptian Hypothesis. Like I said, I haven't checked the rest, and I haven't gone through all of your edits on the mentioned articles due to the fact that you make many small edits and don't mention anything in the edit summery, so I'm not sure if you are just adding negrocentric nonsense or if you're actually trying to help improve the article by adding reliable sources to your claims. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok, thank you for clarifying your thoughts. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 17:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Black Egyptian Hypothesis". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 January 2014.

• Hi Andajara120000, I am looking for some clarification. You have filed both a request for formal mediation [8] and also a request at the dispute resolution notice board. [9] These are two separate dispute resolution processes and normally do not proceed at the same time. Please look at the Wikipedia policy on Dispute resolution. In the section of the policy on "Resolving content disputes," the importance of discussion with the other party is highlighted. Such discussion usually takes place on the article talk page. I note that you made some proposed edits on January 4. There has been no discussion of your proposals to date. To summarize the policy: 1) Discuss on the talk page (avoiding edit waring). 2) if no resolution, follow one of the dispute resolution processes. Would you please clarify your intentions? Sunray ( talk) 08:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes the article is under ArbComm so I was not sure if that meant Mediation is required? They have not allowed any editing since January 4 by claiming since it is ArbComm it cannot be changed but then the discussion goes in circles, even when new editors step in, and it seems to be stalling the article. These issues have come up again and again this past month with other editors who have done the same thing-stalled any editing and then not actually responding to the comments. But when a new editor tries to edit it they rush to block the editing. A quick glance at the revision history demonstrates how things have been going, with editors just avoiding discussion on the talk page but blocking any editing and then referring new editors to the talk page to discuss. As the article is ArbComm which would be preferable? I am just hoping to reach some progress in editing of the article as there seems to be gridlock. I think whichever avenue will allow the article to proceed and not end up in this same predicament again since it is ArbComm and allow the multiple other editor voices to be heard. Outside input is also very much wanted as many of these editors have been involved with this issue for years. Other editors have also noted the WP:Ownership of this article by a small group of editors who also have asserted WP:Ownership of the parent article Ancient Egyptian race controversy that has stymied any attempts to properly update this article and the parent article over the years. Perhaps mediation in this case is necessary to have a full examination of what has happened over the years with these articles. But in any case in this particular article the problem is the 1974 UNESCO conference info in the lead v. the 2001 Oxford Enclyclopedia Info and outside editor input is sorely needed on this issue and the other four topics I listed.

(In regards to the Wikipedia:ownership issue of this collection of articles by about 5 editors- I would like some advice- on Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Population history of Egypt and DNA history of Egypt that has been going on since 2008 what can be done? I am frustrated and dozens of other editors have been frustrated over the years as well and I think it is an extremely serious issue that should be analyzed from the first development of these articles to date. Indeed the proliferation of so many articles on the same subject, all created by the same small group of editors, and not yet merged even after numerous calls for it is testament to this issue. Is there any serious review process one can undertake for this issue? As I am new to Wikipedia, I am not sure, but even if the letter of the law is being followed in regards to this group of articles and group of editors, I am sure the spirit of the rules of Wikipedia are not. This issue has deeply disturbed me and many other editors over the years and I fear it may continue to damage the credibility of Wikipedia on NPOV and neutrality on these topics and drive many editors and readers away. I say this because some of the versions of these articles-which have remained stable for months have included many misrepresentations and miscitations-as a perusal of the talk page articles shows, like on Talk:DNA history of Egypt#How could everyone miss this for so long? which have been left intact by this small cadre of editors, while constructive edit attempts have been stymied and stalled by use of various Wikipedia tactics that many inexperienced editors making good-faith contributions cannot navigate. I believe the spirit of Wikipedia has been violated overmuch in these past 5-6 years in the examples I have given.)

Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 08:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I think you misunderstand WP:OWNERSHIP. There isn't a group of editors who work together to keep one version or even one pov, there is frequent disagreement. The fact that something was missed for some time really doesn't mean more than that the article has few watchers and somehow they were away or whatever when an edit was made. We all take vacations (I hope) and don't always have time to check every article we are interested in for changes. Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

There is certainly a small group that you are very much a part of pushing a very specific POV over the years, creating a proliferation of articles on the same topic to exhaust editor patience and resources and using other topics that violate the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia as a collaborative medium, and I hope finally some outside editors can take the time to scrutinize your group and your actions over the years. The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

See Talk:DNA history of Egypt#Section on "Recent DNA Studies of Amarna and Ramesses III Lineages" moved here from article. your sources must explicitly back the statement that they "claim to have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages:" You've been challenged on this now by 2 editors, time for you to show chapter and verse - you know about ArbCom so you know you need to discuss and justify these. There is also a discussion at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis. Again you need to take part in this. Dougweller ( talk) 14:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

My time and patience is not going to be exhausted jumping around four nearly identical articles all sput out by you or these cadre of editors - The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." -I will attempt to engage you all in four separate talk page discussions on four nearly identical articles created all by you or members of this cadre of editors for exactly the purpose of exhausting editors. But, of course, yes, it is exhausting discussing the same exact issue on four separate talk pages with the same small group of editors and "brothers of the faith" again and again. But my patience and time is greater than most other editors who have attempted it and I will try my best with the DRN I have submitted. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I just removed your text dump of your evidence to WP:AN. Your WP:ANI thread was closed not even an hour ago. Please stop forum shopping. You've been advised multiple times on where to take this. Please listen to what others have told you. only ( talk) 23:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I have withdrawn the DRNs so kindly do not delete my AN as I now have zero forum. Administrators have not clearly answered my question as to now that the DRNs are withdrawn if an AN is appropriate. I have actually sought advice from multiple other editors throughout this process. This is a conduct issue not content so kindly refrain from your intimidation tactics. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

See this is why you're not going to get far. I'm not "a friend" of another user here; I'm an uninvolved administrator. But you keep going around proclaiming there's some cabal; the brothers of faith in a conspiracy that doesn't exist. only ( talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Well let this be heard. Even if it does not go far let the evidence speak for itself. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

You may be interested in the discussion on the Talk page of the Black Egyptian article. It's concerning pictures in the article. You also brought this issue up as point #4 on the Talk page. Rod ( talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I am happy to see there is a fulsome discussion now on this point #4. I found some guidelines on Wikipedia:Image use policy that I was not as aware of before that I hope will be helpful during the discussion. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Egyptians are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:DNA history of Egypt for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm unclear what "general discussion" about the topic I have engaged in. All discussion has been about what to include in the articles or not. Can you please provide diffs of what you are referring to? Cryptic messages such as the above is not helpful to me in trying to engage in the collaborative process at Wikipedia. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 04:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

this is an example of inappropriate use of an article talk page, and you have done the same thing on several article talk pages. Please read and understand WP:NOTFORUM. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok-that is in regards to the pending WP:NORN case filed by an involved editor on the page regarding the exact sources to include in the article so I would hardly characterize it as "general discussion." In any case, point taken. Thank you. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 04:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

If it is posted at WP:NORN there is no need to post it in article talk. WP:FORUMSHOP Flat Out let's discuss it 04:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok, I see you deleted it. If those are the rules then those are the rules. Point taken. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, Andajara120000. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 04:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, I want to be helpful to the ArbComm but it is difficult for me to know how to respond to questions from the ArbComm to support my statements and provide "current evidence" of issues without the expansion of my statement. Also, responding to the many different editors involved has been difficult. Even I am overwhelmed by the entire process because so many editors are involved who have been so heavily involved in the group of articles. I will try to organize the statement but even I am feeling overwhelmed balancing length, responding to the so many editors involved, and responding to requests by the ArbComm for specific examples. I will try my best in the time I have available as this whole process is also taking a great deal of time. :( Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 04:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

You are currently over 7,000 words and well over the word count limit. The most effective case requests are concise and easy to read; at 7,000 words, you run the risk of arbitrators not wanting to read any of your statement. -- Rs chen 7754 04:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, certainly, I will work on continuing to trim it right now and in the time I have available. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Friendly advice: Can I suggest you delete all the editorialising for a start? Make a comment, add a diff for support, let ArbCom do the rest. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your advice. As I am new to this it's been hard to balance presenting evidence and adequately responding to the various statements and queries for specific misconduct at the case page and also making sure everything stays readable and organized. I think many editors may face similar issues during dispute resolution processes, but of course some are more talented in the art in conciseness than others. I am definitely working on improving that as I am naturally verbose. But indeed, I am now trying to cut down on the repetitive editorializing as you indicated and do appreciate your advice in that vein as well. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 04:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Free Advice - the point of a case request is not to prove a case, it is to offer enough evidence to persuade ArbCom that there is a good reason to open a case and investigate. You don't need to respond to every comment from other editors. Focus on the task of showing clearly to ArbCom that there is something that needs to be addressed and that an ArbCom case, as a complex, draining and involved process that constitutes the final step in dispute resolution, is the only step available. Remember also that the actions of all parties will be examined in any case. Ignore commentary from others that is not on the topic of whether a case should be opened - detailed evidence comes later, if a case is opened - and choose the clearest examples to illustrate the problem as you see it. My suggestion is to reflect on this and then take to your present submission with an eye to very substantial edits... maybe even collapse the whole thing and go for a concise statement (a few hundred words) with diffs of why a case is needed. EdChem ( talk) 05:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Yes, exactly I also turned to collapsing!! The formatting came out a bit odd because of the size of my computer screen but I will definitely take your advice to heart as I aim to making this as readable as possible for everyone. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Yalens, Λuα and I have reverted you on the DNA stuff. That means you don't have consensus. The studies don't discuss the Black Egyptian hypothesis - see WP:VRS which says "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail." - that applies to some other articles as well. You haven't even responded to my trying to explain that your edit is WP:SYN and until it is demonstrated and agreed not to be that's another reason it shouldn't be in the articles. In a couple of articles it's also too trivial, although that's the least of the reasons. Because you've been reverted by 3 editors and you keep reinstating it you are running close to a violation of our policy on edit-warring. I don't think it would be a good idea for you to be blocked right now because of the ArbCom case (and only because of that), but if you continue someone, maybe me, is likely to ask for that. 3RR isn't an entitlement. Spreading it across all these articles doesn't help you either. Restoring it would be a bad idea - again, I am saying this because I don't want to see you blocked, although you probably won't believe me. Being blocked in the middle of this case would not be good. I'll add that a lot of the editors who normally frequent NORN are probably still on university holiday, hopefully they will be back soon. But do read WP:SYN. Dougweller ( talk) 06:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I am responding to you on NORN so we do not have parallel talk page discussions-it is exhausting having parallel talk page discussions. I am not ignoring you in the least, but as you are the one who filed the NORN I assumed you wanted to centralize the discussion and get some outside editors' input. Let me know if I am misunderstanding and if so, why did you file the NORN? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 06:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't think you are ignoring me but you do not understand how we use sources. Sources need to discuss the subject of the article, and at least one of yours doesn't and in some cases neither do. This is a basic difference between Wikipedia and for instance an article in a peer reviewed journal and is one I didn't understand a hundred thousand edits ago. What I'm saying here is that it would be a bad idea for you to try to put the material back in the articles. That is in no way a threat. It's just an explanation of what is likely to happen, especially as you've been reverted by 3 editors including me but not Wdford, even though not on the same articles. I think Wdford also misunderstands. Dougweller ( talk) 07:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

And just to not clog the NORN page and open it up to other editors, I'll reply here. I just want to clarify why you keep asking me for sources for my statements. I'm not sure what part you actually disagree with: the paternal inheritance of Y, or the maternal inheritance of mtDNA. Or are you asking about the time separation of the haplogroup distributions? If it's the former, then you can check out any basic science book to read more about how genetics work. If it's the former, your own "peer-reviewed studies" that you keeping throwing around explain the scope of their findings.

It's really concerning to me you're stringing two facts together although you apparently don't have a science background or even a sufficient understanding to allow you to see the basic fallacy in your logic. However, I do understand why you might think there might be a conspiracy, since you believe you have two solid facts and everyone is plotting to take them down.

Cheers, Λuα ^{( Operibus anteire)} 15:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Central Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kongo, Luba, Mongo and Banda language

Black Egyptian hypothesis ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Abyssinia and Abyssinians

History of Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mbang

Sub-Saharan Africa ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Banda language

Sudan ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zaghawa

Traditional African religion ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lucumi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for long-time disruption of Ancient Egypt-related articles as well as egregious forum shopping, see this list. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Bishonen | talk 19:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC). reply

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Black Egyptian Hypothesis, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Johnjohnjames ( talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller ( talk) 10:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply