Hello, Thestudentspirit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stalwart 111 23:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Your recent edit to the page National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Footwarrior ( talk) 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Your addition to Battle of Pollilur has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. I suspect you didn't realise this. Dougweller ( talk) 17:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Howdy! Thanks for your edits to Spanish Inquisition‎. Just thought I should point out that if you're making useful edits to Wikipedia, as you did, there's no need to get angry or upset about having to make them in the first place. Anyone can edit Wikipedia so some basic errors, spelling mistakes and less-than-ideal language is bound to be included. People who spend their own time fixing those errors are always welcome, so there's no need to SHOUT in your edit summaries to convince people your edit was worthwhile. Good luck and happy editing! Stalwart 111 23:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I received you message and paused before replying. As you have re-sent the message, I want to tell you why I did not respond 10 days ago. Firstly, I sincerely hope you find someone to help you with your worries that can talk you through this present muddle.

Please know that my comments arise from the nature of your responses to other contributors' edits on the HAU page. I am concerned for your well being and peace of mind. I thought it best to step back from the page on HAU, the Journal.

My contributions add up to only a three foot notes, and perhaps a clause that remains in the text. None of these swell the entry. What remains is only a reference to a UK Gov advisory note on bullying in the workplace, and ACAS advice about its complexity, and a reference to a professional anthropological association that created a forum for direct discussion of HAU's employment practices. There is a phrase about HAU talk. Were I to make on further addition, I would only add that a footnote to refer to HAU Board of Directors' positive considerations in wake of the controversy as were given to developing good employment policies. None of this should be understood as intentionally provocative, nor is it an act of vandalism.

I do not wish to develop a page on HAU Talk, but thank you for your confidence in my potential to contribute to it. It is not a theme I know much about.

I'll look at the links you sent to referencing in Wikipedia, at some point in the future.

I wish you well. Jabezclegg ( talk) 20:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. Anonymous Twitter posts and pseudonymous blog posts (Medium) are not reliable sources. Particular care has to be taken when it comes to allegations about living people (see WP:BLPSPS), Wikipedia can only summarize what reliable secondary sources have said about this incident. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Please also see Wikipedia's guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest, it's recommended that those who are close to a subject propose changes on the article's talk page using {{ request edit}}. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Thestudentspirit, the edit in question is a serious WP:BLP issue, please don't reinstate it (another relevant guideline is Bold-revert-discuss, but it is less relevant here since badly referenced BLP issues cannot stay in an article). Please also see WP:COI, you should not directly edit the article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

1. If we remove anonymous twitter and blog posts then if that is the criteria, all twitter and blogposts need to be removed from the article.
2. The blog post you refer to is not pseudonymous, it a memorandum internal to an organization, example of which are cited abundantly in wikipedia entries. I will call in a moderator to resolve this dispute if it continues. Thestudentspirit ( talk) 10:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Thestudentspirit ( talk) 19:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Thestudentspirit reply

​Yes, all Twitter and blogposts should be removed from the article. These allegations are a WP:BLP violation, internal documents cannot be used here at all. Documents officially published by the organization can be used for non-controversial statements, but internal documents and WP:SPS analysis of the organizations emails can not. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

​ Ok, sounds good. The publication in question is no longer a "blogpost", but an an open access publication in a University repository. If I revert back the text about this public publication, you can no longer revert it back, is that right? It contains a neutral summary of verified findings, data for which is now published. "In May 2020 an independent memorandum was circulated by one of HAU's editors which was later published non-anonymously online, titled “David Graeber and the HAU Coup”, which charts the role of a group of notable professors, including Graeber, Marshall Sahlins, Sarah Green and Ilana Gershon, and the former HAU managing editor, Sean Dowdy, in threatening and creating a public scandal if the founder and editor-in-chief Giovanni da Col did not resign. ^[1] The memorandum summarizes evidence of leaked correspondence showing that behind the scandal were particular interests planning to remove the editor “at all costs” and takeover the organisation by reputational assassination, achieved by fabricating evidence and selectively manipulating recorded private conversations to deploy them publicly within the terms of wider politicised phenomena such as MeToo. Thestudentspirit Thestudentspirit ( talk) 19:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Thestudentspirit reply

Er þetta rétta leiðin til að láta þig vita? Fékkstu ping? ( talk) 15:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

​Hæ. A paper posted to a university repository is still a self-published source and would not be used in this context. Secondly, it's not a good idea to directly edit articles about people that you are personally in dispute with (see WP:BLPCOI), Wikipedia strongly discourages it.

I have no doubts about you being correct, but having those that are directly involved with a incident write about it (and citing primary documents) is strongly discouraged because it always leads to non- neutral articles containing un-due amounts of detail. Since you have a WP:BLPCOI, do consider suggesting edits on the article's talk page with {{ request edit}} and summarizing only what independent sources such as newspapers have said. (Yes I know newspapers never present things accurately, but for an open project like Wikipedia they do help to keep things relatively WP:DUE)

(Ég fékk reyndar ekki ping þarna af því að þú gleymdir að skrifa undir með fjórum ~~~~, en það er allt í lagi af því að maður fær alltaf tilkynningu þegar einhver skrifar á spjallsíðuna manns)

– Thjarkur (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

​ Ok. Thanks for your reply. It seems it will be published in another outlet then, until it suits your standards, which is a website with an editor by an author who has no connection to the issue? Because according to your definition, anything from allegralab for example is self-published and invalid. The University repository authorized its publication, it's on google scholar, can't it be cited? Are you sure? I will get back to you and ping again in about a month once its published in another outlet. In any case I am not in a dispute or an "avowed rival" nor was I directly involved in any of it, I have just a keen interest in reporting all available and verifiable facts and using available sources to provide proof for the truth and lies of the story: "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities." "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." I am not editing Green's franverdi's totally self-published wikipedia entry, which should be in any case reported to wikipedia. Thestudentspirit -- Thestudentspirit ( talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Thestudentspirit ( talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Thestudentspirit reply

Please review WP:CIVIL. Including rude remarks like "Pen-dejo" in your edit summary is hurtful to the encyclopedia and to fellow editors. — Wingedserif ( talk) 20:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Pendejo is like saying dude my-guy in Mexico if you actually speak mexican Spanish, as in "no way pendejo i cannot believe you are pearlclutching over the word pendejo calling for civility in a post that actively lied about three of the most serious criminal offenses about a living human being" Thestudentspirit ( talk) 21:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Not the way you're using it. — Wingedserif ( talk) 22:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. Thank you. — Wingedserif ( talk) 21:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Thestudentspirit: Please let us know if you do have any connection to Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, or to someone that works there. You need not be paid to have a COI. You can post your reply here or at COIN. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 22:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages ( HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory) for edit warring and possible undeclared COI editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Drmies ( talk) 16:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply