Talk:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request from Symbio04, 22 July 2010_just mend ref 3 to see the Palestinian paper.Symbio04 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

[1]

Symbio04 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please,stop Dumu Eduba libels

Please,stop Dumu Eduba libells.Notices looking for people are thousands everyday published in Administrations Bulletins because receptors have been unable to receive at home (absent, working) trafic fines (or other) notifications- AAV has always been working in the same place,having the same telephones and address [2] Symbio04 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbio04 (alias Arnaiz alias Tinpa, alias Iberomesornix, alias Virginal6, alias Tintagel67, et alii), remember the WP:NLT. And you perfectly know that you are deceiving people in wikipedia, that what you says has no sense. Stop deceiving people, because the only conclusion we can extract is that all that you say is a lie. You are dirsupting edition, making legal threats, distorting data and continuously changing the version of the facts honly to confond people. Apport the evidence, if it exists and it is not another of your pityful deceptions, and stop your campaign of personal attacks and defamation. It is obvious that if you really thought that the "secret services" (refering to the Mosad as always) were after you you wil not dare to write anything here. I am tired of your silly tall stories. If you are really a Spanish university professor, your behaviour is really very sad for Spain.

It looks like when the quotes show that the IMSALUD had an expedient against him in the ending of 2004 is not valid because he was "absent", just trying to confound pèople from the fact that it proves that the case was not over. Just another of Arnaiz clumsy and pathetic distortion. Or is he claiming that he was at university when he were not? (see the papers, especially the opinion of ABC on his illness).

The fact is that Arnaiz1 (and his alias) use to retaliate every editor who do not agree with him with insults, personal attacks, impolite accusations an defamating comments.

Let me remember that it is you, hidden under the alias of Iberomesormix and Virginal6, has wrote libels, spreding accusations you now are false.

Administrators, apply the WP:COI and WP:NLT, in the best of cases (that Arnaiz has the doccuments he claims), urge him to afford them. But his negative to afford them, in spite of being asked (let's not forget it, suggests that he is only lying and playing with us. Stop his mockery, because Arnaiz1 (and aliases) is only a vandal who only wants to waste our time.Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The state things stand (and the problem with Arnaiz1 sockpuppets)

I write to clarify the question, given the huge work of the bunch of socks to create confusion. It has been proven that versions afforded to this article (on the matter litigation) by the socks are at best distortions (that is to say, they claimed all the charges were nullified in 2003, then that at the beginning of 2004... this has been proven false, the quoted sentences found and show to be only on formal questions). Now it is claimed that the charges were retired at 2006, but without affording any clear reference.

Additionally, Arnaiz socks (you can easily recognize them by his signing mark in the abstract of the editions) had used wikipedia to launch criminal accusations against his former collegues (but again without any source) (that besides his paranoid accusations that editors of the wikipedia are members of "secret services" who are retaliating him).

When Arnaiz1 was still claiming that a sentence of January 10th 2004 closed the case, at June 10th he was politely asked by John Vandenberg to email him the scanned documents of the sentence and the alleged report of the Colegio de Medicos-Madrid [3]. But there are no news on these asked documents.

I found the quoted by Arnaiz1 sentences (184 2003 and 1/04 2004) and see that its content is not what Arnaiz1 claims. Now he claims that the case was over by a sentence of 2006.....

He has been asked to afford scanned documents, he has been suggested to send the proofs to the newspaper which "accused" him in order to get a correction published, etc.

But from Arnaiz1 we only got (and get) undocumented stories, nasty accusations and victimism.

I asked to invite an administrator of the Wikipedia with legal knowledge and access to the legal databases to follow the case, confirm my legal research (in case I missed something) and to ask Arnaiz1 for the references of the "new" sentences he claims now to exist (but hiding the references numbers and details so that can not be found). As it is very clear that the strategy of Arnaiz is to launch personal attacks against me (he does not forgive me for finding references which showed that he was distorting references in favour of his usko-mediterranean fringe theory) and against others who did not agree with him, I hope that some administrator with legal experience and access to the databases will involve in this question. Personally, after so many lies and distortion I do not believe a word of what Arnaiz says o will say without the proper proofs (Trick me once...). Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In love with Kwami

Most of us are in love with you.We would like to have such nice enemies in real life. You ask to send blindly true and private documents to nick named people (who does not seem to like us much). Our lawyer forbids us to send true documents to false names.Send your true name and address and we will send you certificates of "good conduct",driving licenses ,sentences,baptism certificates etc.Your possible violation of living people biographies and privacy is outstandingSymbio04 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for private documents, and I have no wish to see them. We can't use them to justify changes to this article. What we need are public documents. If those documents do not exist, then the article will remain as it is. (Also, you are clearly lying about what your lawyer said. I don't have much faith in your word.) — kwami (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal Court are public institutions and sentences are public documents (and so an abstract of them were published by El Pais and Diario Médico) and the alleged report of the COlegio de Médicos de Madrid should be very very public. Ah, and our "Arnaiz in love" forgot that he can send the document to the "evil" newspaper in order to get the correction of the news published. It is so easy, just ask what you ask here to "Diario Médico" / "ABC" / "El País" and "EL Mundo" to publish correction at least in their webpage. Newspapes should be more important than Wiki (which is a secondary source), but only if the story he wrote in 2007 in the article is true, though.

Remember that it was Arnaiz who ask to John Vandenberg (uhu, name and surnames.... not anonymous)if he needed the scanned documents and John Vandenberg who asked two documents, and as can be seen here it is not a nick. So what Symbio04/Arnaiz says has no sense (as usual). Ehem Arnaiz1, (and / or sockpuppets), which will be the next pretext?

BTW Arnaiz1 (and sockpuppets as Symbio04 and many others) say so silly things that maybe they are not Arnaiz but the famous alleged "secret services" pretending to be Arnaiz to defamate him. ;-) LOL. Dumu Eduba (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Beloved Kwami :all details ,Judge names and sentence , dates have been giving here BREAKING OUR INTIMACY,This was for you and others to forcing Dumu Eduba to finish his libellous work started on last June 9th He has to contact (phone) the College of Physicians and one or two Courts according to details which have ben given here.

It is obvious that all accused have been working in Administration Research,Health and/or University always since witch hunt in 2002(see research published papers in Internet).They could not have worked and done it if they would have been guilty.The ARE INNOCENT as Dba infers and anybody with a good faith does, Please,make Dumu Eduba to finishing his work. Beloved Kwami,your personal integrity is suffering by not asking the right person to finish the work (Dumu Eduba) .We have not seen any scanned Judge sentence showed in WP and a parallel trial ongoing like this one.

It seems,somebody is breaking intimacy and living people biography WP policy.This is your problem anyway, We can ask authorities permission to pay Kwami(or other) if he wishes, a holyday here(even if they live too close) and you could know all of us,children,families.We can take you to Flamenco shows,Museums .You will have the opportunity to have a more exact view about your war against us, and to see all our documents,including baptism certificates,sentences,bank accounys ,homes scrutiny ,our environment and work.Beloved Kwami,this is a hopeless warSymbio04 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC),

You're just being silly. I will ignore you and your protests from now on, unless you have something reasonable to say. Good bye. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Now he's being a proper twerp. This would actually warrant a block IMHO. Trigaranus (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We have tried to collaborate in good faith with Mr. Arnaiz-Villena and his socks towards a fair representation of his case. But this has clearly failed, it isn't possible to discuss with somebody who keeps posting childish rants. Frankly, this talkpage paints a much more dismal picture of the case than the article text ever did. If AVA cannot stick to using a single account and making reasonable contributions, we will have no option but to block the offending accounts from editing. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

CASE WAS FINISHED IN PRACTISE AT THE BEGINNING OF 2003-SENDING DOCUMENTS ONLY TO WIKIPEDIA FUNDATION

Sentence 1/04 starts: “”En la villa de Madrid ,a 10 de Enero de 2004. Visto por la Sala de lo Contenciosp Administrativo el Tribunal Suparior de Justicia de Madrid,constituida en Seccion por los Señorees anotados al margen (Camino Vazquez Castellanos,Mercedes Moradas Blanco,Jose Luis Aulet Barros,Santiago de Andres Fuentes,Carmen Alvarez Theurer),el recurso de apalacion con el numero 1/04 ante la misma pende la resolucion interpuesto (sic) por la Procuradora D ALICIA OLIVA COLLAR,en representacion de D.CARLOS ANTONIO ARNAIZ VILLENA,contra la Sentencia de fecha 23 de Octubre de 2003 dictada por el juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo numero 8 de los de Madrid etc........TERCERO (pag 8).Esta sala Declara la nulidad de la resolucion impugnada.... This sentence annulls the Administrative charges:they do not exist anymore (all these false charges are spread by Dumu Eduba in the Third Paragraph,based on Sentence annulled of Court No 8) Judge Julio de Diego Lopez: January 6th 2006 :he closes down unbased embezzlement charges investigation.They are not true.None of the accused were taken to trial ever. Yet, the case was finished in fact with Sentence 184 (February 19th 2003) from Tribunal Superior de Justicia presided by Judge Ines Garicano : AAV Constitutional Rights had been violated and AAV started again in the Health Service (he did not leave University ever).Arnaiz-Villena salary was always fully paid because the University did not believe any acusation. There are many other sentences induced by other accused researchers defense. We are not allowed by lawyers to sending any sentence or private documents to “nick-names”:we will send all to Wikipedia Fundation administrators. The only thing you have achieved is to have in WP an outdated libellous biography for some weeks.It is not much.Symbio04 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides the fact that maybe you should fire your lawyer (for giving orders to his chief instead of advice, according to what you say), you have been told that the Wikipedia Administrator John Vandenberg who asked to you the documents here 53 days ago (!) is not a nick, and that you can also ask for a correction to the Newspaper which according to you are libeling you; Why you did not?

Besides this, to contact with the Wikipedia Foundation is very easy: just look at the Contact us page (I found it in less than 30 seconds!!! Not very difficult indeed). What are you waiting for to send them the whole documentation?????? (In the case that these documents do exist, which yor behaviour till now suggests it is not the case) Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Editorial board

The article states that "Arnaiz-Villena was removed from the journal's editorial board." No source is provided. In reality (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v30/n2/full/ng0202-139.html), Arnaiz-Villena was a visiting editor for the September issue of the journal, an issue devoted for comparative population genetics. So he couldn't have been removed from the jorunal's editorial board because he was never on it. I think this should be made clear in the article. Millligram (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Claim removed. (The following clause was unintelligible with it in there anyway.) — kwami (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena was sacked from Editorial Board.

{{edit semi-protected}} Revert Kwamikagami 22nd October edition. Millligram only entered in WP to distort even more the AAV innacurate and outdated biography that Wikipedia shows.(Only this intervention!). Reference for "Arnaiz-Villena was removed from journal`s editorial board" is

[4]. Arnaiz-Villena was indeed removed from the Editorial Board" --Symbio04 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbio04 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Look who's back - it must be coming up for Xmas ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. - editsemi template not modified. Please help by expanding the claim to concisely and neutrally include the context, and resulting controversy surrounding it. Reading the citation, there's a _lot_ going on that's not represented by "X was sacked". --Lexein (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand what you want. Also, since AV was only a guest editor to begin with, I don't see that it's of any great importance. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess the question is whether he was "only a guest editor" or not. The BMJ article by Karen Shashok does say "Dr Arnaiz-Villena was dismissed from the editorial board." If he was on the editorial board, then the complaint in the same BMJ article that "journals should not hand responsibility to someone unfamiliar with that journal's editorial procedures without written guidance or oversight" seems rather confused. As a member of the editorial board he should have known what the journal's editorial procedures were. There is no contradiction between being on the board and being a guest editor. I have been a guest editor of an issue of a journal of which I am a board member. However, it's not uncommon for some academic journals to have quite a long list of people on the editorial board. It might be possible to find out whether he was listed on the board before the article. Here is the current board: [5] Hard copies of journals often list board members. Paul B (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Semi-protected edit requests can't be used when there is an obvious lack of consensus for the change. "Please revert someone's edit" lacks consensus. Please reach a consensus here on the talk page before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The BMJ article explicitly says "Dr Arnaiz-Villena was dismissed from the editorial board", so the statement is sourceable and the orginal objection from Millligram (that he was a guest editor) has no bearing on whether or not he was on the board. This request, btw, is Millligram's only ever edit. I suspect silly games are being played by our sock-farm. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not that clear. I've read the entire thing on BMJ twice now and the only conclusion I can draw is that on the journal in question, a guest editor automatically is made a (temporary?) member of the board. I have little experience of board membership of journals, does that happen at all? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but I don't know about the practice in science. I guess we have to accept Karen Shashok's article as 'reliable', but speaking personally, I find it to be little more than a compendium of non sequiturs. However, what it says is what it says! Paul B (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There's various others that back up her version, this one from the Guardian [6] and Tufts [7]. I guess the convolution isn't our fault; I'm fine with someone putting it back. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Greeks

The abstract says:

Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans. The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers.

Which means this is not a good source for a claim that Greeks are genetically related to Sub-Saharans. Even you should appreciate that fact. Plus the sentence is still bad English and shite formatting. I'm SO tired of fixing your formatting you wouldn't believe it... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

On the editions made by Symbio04, may I remember the question of the evident WP:COI? Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a very detailed genetics article that explains all those issues here : http://greek-dna-sub-saharan-myth.org/greeks-sub-saharan.html. It seems the Hajjej study is a bad copy of Arnaiz-Villena's study (http://greek-dna-sub-saharan-myth.org/greeks-sub-saharan.html#Anchor7). GoingToPluto (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice, though I don't think that passes Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the contact paga the author is "Costas Triantaphyllidis, Department of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece" so it is some kind of documented opinion. Besides this in this section [8] on a textbook ("Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease") explicitly criticizing Arnaiz's conclusions, with a link to the pdf] this is a standard valid source! Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I expand the info. There are three authors Christos Karatzios1, Stephen G. Miller2, Costas D. Triantaphyllidis*3 from three different countries and research centers (see here). The editor, George P. Patrinos, states a significant comment: "As a result, the Arnaiz-Villena and coworkers study was totally discredited by the scientific community to the extent that is used as a textbook definition of subjective and arbitrary interpretation of study results. From an editorial perspective, such offense is even graver than plagiarism, since it attempts to elude and to falsely create a wrong impression to the scientific community. It is noteworthy that other studies suffering from similar deficiencies have been retracted from the scientific literature (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4307083,00.html)." Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice detective work, Dumu :) Sounds good to me, shall we work it in somehow? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That statement does not exist at the link you provided. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is the missing statement? (Note: The one on The Guardian is quoted by them, I did not open it) Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood that. The (first) link is dead, though. — kwami (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it seems today it is off-line (although still appears on Google. Maybe the server is down.Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good quote for this article, but it would be nice if we could find a reliable link. — kwami (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whereas it reappears at least the reference of the book Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease 978-0815341857, page 12, remains. Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't appear there either. — kwami (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion there, describing A-V's grouping as "essentially arbitrary". Paul B (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And it says in the bibliography that the study had been retracted. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Today the web is on again. Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The parts about Hajjej and Dork are very interesting in my opinion. We are used to read that Dork and Hajjej verified/support Villena's theory. But here there is a much more detailed examination of the facts. If you look at Hajjej table of samples, you see they used the same (actually a subset) of Villena's data (http://greek-dna-sub-saharan-myth.org/greeks-sub-saharan.html#Anchor7). Hajjej's data: ([9] and [10]), Villena's data: ([11] and [12]). And they used the same genes/methodology [13]. Dork did not find extensive African influence to the Greek dna pool, like villena says he did. Dork found 3 greek families with an African gene. [14]. And Dork states that it is most probable that the Greeks came in contact with the Africans (during Alexander's era), not the other way around [15]. GoingToPluto (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to organize the article as best as I could. I added here and there new information. I would be glad if you guys could review it and make any corrections wherever you fit appropriate. GoingToPluto (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

GoingToPluto,you are converting a living person biography in a Discussion.These are making things more difficult:are you only interested in this biography in WP?Then,you have something personal in favour (?)or against Arnaiz-Villena. Other more interesting topics ,like linguistics or Palestinians became obscured with your additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symbio04 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Like you edit a lot of different topics, Symbio, have you looked at your contribs page [16] recently? Akerbeltz (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my bloody hell, Symbio: "Then,you have something personal in favour (?)or against Arnaiz-Villena." Are you freaking serious? You are the one editor on this page who's least in a position to suspect others of an agenda. Why is it always those whose lack of impartiality is so blatantly obvious who are yapping the loudest about how everybody else has joined a secret society sworn to sabotaging them? And go learn some English, that would really be "in favour of" yourself, and Arnaiz1, and Grumpy, and Dopey. Trigaranus (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Errr... I would personally say it's bad practice to revert decent edits because a known POV pusher and likely sockpuppet is up to their own tricks. I don't mind the tweaks but the wholesale rollback Tentontunic [17] seems unreasonable to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbio04, I am sorry, what do you mean that the biography is converted into a Discussion? Only people with personal interests and agendas edit articles here? I used facts, well documented facts. You have reverted all my changes but you have not justified it, you have not shown a single statement that is not well documented. I do not want to revert anybody’s edits. So I ask for WP administrators to step in and solve this issue. Is there any formal procedure for this? GoingToPluto (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

GoingtoPluto. Do not worry nor wonder to much about what Symbio04 says. According to WP rules he, SYmbio04, must not edit in this article as he (as many aliases and puppets Virginal6, Iberomesornix, Tintagel67 etc etc) are (is) most probably Arnaiz-Villena rewriting his biography as he likes or, at best, he and some very close friends. It is pityful and ridiculous but it is so.

His method is to launch accusations against all the others and complian for alleged attacks against him. He got some of his editions deleted even from the history, because he libeled some of his medicine doctors colleagues. He even accused the editors he do not like of being part of the secret services (allegedly the Mosad). It is so utterly stupid. Sometimes he found some editor who does not know his pityful edit history.

Symbio-Arnaiz claimed he had documents proven his oppinion on the lagal question. As he himself suggested the idea, he was asked to send a scan of the alleged documents by an admin who uses his real name. The Symbio-A claimed he could not send it to a nick (which indeed was NOT the case) but to wikipedia fundation. I show him how to contact with, but again he coul not.

I suggest you can ask the admin who restored the allegedly stable editions and how him the data and evidence, and ask his oppinion about. All is well referenced, and this is not Arnaizpedia.

BTW good work finding valid sources on the question. Congratulations. Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dumu Eduba. I do not understand how Symbio04 is not allowed to edit this article, but he does it. What kind of rules are these?

I have asked Kwamikagami to look into the issue, since he is an admin and has an interest on this article.

I have also asked Tentontunic, the editor that reverted all changes to an older version to come and discuss it. However I noticed that Tentontunic is not an admin and had not discussed his action with any of us here. On the other hand, I had presented a small summary of facts and sources on this talk page, before I did anything. I am new to editing WP and I am not sure who does what. How long we have to wait before an admin can decide for this or before we make the correction? GoingToPluto (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami just stepped in. Everything is ok now. GoingToPluto (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) Noticeboard

There is a discussion about this article at BLPN. Editors are requested to please not delete reliable references without explaining a good reason. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, apply to Symbio04 the COI policy, and look at the many problems "contributed" since years ago by his bunch of puppets and sock-puppets. And BTW he and his sock-puppets has been harassing many editors (like me), writing contradictory changing versions (any time his "truth" was discovered to be wrong he invented a new one, that newspapers are libeling him but rejecting to sue those newspapers and even launching criminal accusations against members of the 12 de Octubre Hospital, with full names and surnames, that had to be deleted of the record many times as he afforded no proof at all), and lunching accusations urbi et orbe (like saying that we are members of the secret services- Mossad and such). After so many lunacies and bad behaviour, understand that his credibility is very much below 0, and that we are sick of his "behaviour". The only question is why has he not been blocked months ago?

Remember this Symbio04 and puppets are Arnaiz-Villena (and may be some of his friends) writing his own bibliography and harassing the people who dare to add very well documented data, but that he does not like. (the we get accusations, edit warrings, etc etc once and once again).

BTW: since John Vandenberg asked Symbio04 for an alleged document months ago that Symbio04 offered him, we are still waiting for, etc etc etc. Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a footnote containing a quote,[18] per discussion at BLPN. People are free to pursue an investigation of Symbio re. WP:Sockpuppet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but this sockpuppetry case is already very well known: to mention just the few more known: Virginal6, Arnaiz1, Iberomesornix, Tintagel67, Tinpa all of these well known for centering their editions in promoting Arnaiz-Villena in the Wikipedia and even launch unpolite or even dephamating comments against people who has criticized his fringe linguistic research or against other editors (this forgetting users created ad hoc to vote against the deletion of pages based on those fringe ideas and also considered puppets). It is just an old story. In fact even Symbio04 uses their typical sign: adding the four ~ to the edit summary...... Observe for example that even if I has remained absolutely neutral in the last edit conflicts he added my nickname in the discussion about this article at BLPN. Another unpolite fact, but a very typical one in his sad "contributor" style. Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well yep. I think the common theme is that most other editors connected with the case are almost too bored to launch a SP investigation. In fact, I am much more concerned with where I can get a pain au chocolat right now. It's a much more productive use of my break. Trigaranus (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicely put. Did you succeed with the pain au chocolat? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And it was very tasty too, I have to say. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert war

Iberomesornix writes: "Barlow,stop your hate,pleas.If accusations (2001) would not have been false.Arnaiz-Villena would not be still working at Hospital in 2009 and presently." The cited text simply listed A-V's name as a member of staff. We cannot deduce from this that charges were "proven false". Maybe they were not pursued; maybe they were dropped; maybe they were held to be true, but he was reinstated nonetheless. All thse are possibilities. The mere inclusion of his name in a list of staff tells us nothing. Also Iberomesornix has broken 3RR, of which rule he is certainly well aware. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah that's just the kind of "logic" we've had to get used to through various incarnations in and around AAV, Iberian-Guanche and Usko-Mediterranean stuff. Welcome to the club :) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A feeling of deja vu... Iberosomnix opened another complaint at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Section Controversial linguistic theories

This section (which I just renamed from "Fringe linguistic theories") seems to be a violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It is written as an attack on Arnaiz-Villena's claims and needs to be rewritten from a detached viewpoint. First describe Arnaiz-Villena's claims accurately, without any pejorative language and without expressing an opinion on it. Then note the objections raised by other significant commentators according to reliable sources. Most importantly, criticism has to be in the voice of the source not in Wikipedia's voice. We are also obliged to report support for Arnaiz-Villena's claims, if reliable sources contain any. Wikipedia does not have an opinion on the history of the Basque language (and neither do I) — we should not, and in the case of living people must not, attack someone else's opinion in our own voice. Zero^talk 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be undeservedly rude here, but there is no point to be made here, and having to go over it again is tiresome to the utmost. You will not find a single statement in that section which contradicts BLP/NPOV. All the claims listed in the first paragraphs are claims made by AAV in his publications; there is nothing controversial about the academic facts and methodologies they contravene. At present, there is no danger that these facts might need to be reevaluated. A new interpretation of Codex Hammurapi as a Basque funerary text (!) is nothing short of ludicrous and has not a shred of academic validity. I might just as well go and re-translate the Sh'ma Yisrael as an Estonian recipe for duck soup!
As to your second point I must answer with a perplexed: huh? You seem to mistake "detached" for "disinterested after the first paragraph". Javier de Hoz' and Pilchler's criticisms are in their own words. I would like you to read the second paragraph; it makes good reading. Trigaranus (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for a nice recipe for duck soup, so go ahead :)

Yes, I'll second everything Trigaranus just said. Perhaps we could use {{quote formatting or something to make them more obvious though? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" over these claims. They are simply too "far out" for that. So "fringe" is an accurate term. I don't think there is a need to characterise them in the title, though. They could just be called "Linguistic theories". Anyone who reads the text will see how very fringe they are. We would provide reliable sources that supported A-V's claims if there were any. Of course there are none. You might actually make an effort to find something out about the subject first before finger-wagging. Paul B (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm here as a W/p administrator and I don't care about the subject of this article except to enforce the rules (and wag my finger while doing so). And the rules are bring broken here, especially WP:BLP which is the most severely enforced policy we have. The second paragraph is not my concern, since it consists of accurate (I assume) quotations from experts (I assume). However, the first paragraph states very clearly in the voice of Wikipedia that the subject is a charlatan. It doesn't matter how sure you are of that, your opinion is irrelevant. Even if you yourself are a world authority on the subject, your opinion is not admissible here unless you published it (in which case you can cite the publication). So the first sentence which says "which are known to be unrelated to Basque" with the clear meaning of "he is wrong" is inadmissible. What you have to write is something like "which mainstream scholarship holds to be unrelated to Basque" and (most importantly) cite one or more reliable sources making that statement. Even worse is the last part of the first paragraph starting at "This thesis flatly contradicts...". This is an attack on the subject's theories without a single citation. Whose opinion is it, and who is certifying its correctness? This type of thing is simply not allowed, especially in biographical articles. It has to be presented as the opinion of named reliable sources, please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. I assume you guys know something about the subject, so I invite you to fix the problem. Either way, it has to be fixed. Regards to all. Zero^talk 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The man's an idiot. That's not our opinion; the universal opinion among linguists is that his linguistic ramblings are idiotic. The languages he classifies are known to be unrelated to Basque. What you're asking would be like if some scholar claimed that the Earth was flat, and that the fields of geology and astronomy were frauds, we'd have to write "while mainstream scholarship holds that the Earth is round", as if there were some doubt, just because the guy's still alive. His "theories" are not the least bit controversial: Fringe is fringe, even in BLP. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"which mainstream scholarship holds to be unrelated to Basque" -- ?

There are controversies in scholarship, absolutely. Especially when a hypothesis attempts to establish a phylogenetical link between two distant languages or language groups. These things are done, and they may remain controversial (like some of Joseph Greenberg's posited macrofamilies) or may become accepted as academic mainstream (like Edward Vajda's recently posited Dene-Yeniseian languages).

And this is precisely where we get to the problem: AAV does not present a pre-historic phylogenetic link between Basque and, say, Akkadian. Linguistics would require him to posit a relationship definable through regular phonetic changes / semantic shift / inherited grammatical structures and the like. He simply goes and equates individual syllables of Codex Hammurapi to "Basque" morphemes! (¡¡¡frantic gesticulation!!!) If he were a linguist, he at least would have considered the notion that Ancient Babylonian morphemes derive from Semitic roots that may be found in related languages. But what he does is not even linguistics; it's playing around with the alphabets, and some of us do a better job at that age three using fridge magnets.

I am sorry to be getting all scathing again, but I really have to second Kwami there. We do not need quotations saying the world is round rather than flat, and even the most frothing nutcases out there do not change that; it is not controversial. De Hoz puts his finger on it when he says "en principio no debería ser reseñado". I am glad that he did anyway, otherwise WP policies such as WP:BLP would not give us any handle whatsoever to put these ramblings into perspective. I would be all with you, Zero, if that section was about a controversial linguistic theory (e.g. the proposition of a linguistic macrofamily based on any kind of framework); but it's not even that. No controversy, just AAV and a load of sockpuppets who are giving this dross far more attention than it deserves. "Su base lingüística es peor que no existente, es una aberración en el método y en los resultados". Trigaranus (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

AAV is not a linguist but a geneticist. I can see the point of his controversial genetics views being reported and labelled as such but the same does not apply to his other work, if such it may be called. A bio should mention these but need not go into much further detail.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We've been here before, Anothroskon. The problem is that AAV mixes his pseudo-linguistics with his genetics work, you only have to glance through the names of his publications. We had a real problem some time ago with these being added time and again by unsuspecting editors who thought "here's an interesting article on the topic of Basque and the Man in the Moon" so I'll add that. We then had argue on a case by case basis that AAV linguistic work is not to be taken seriously which frankly cost us more time that anyone would like to spend removing stuff from wiki that shouldn't have been there in the first place. So we ended up with a biography on a person that might otherwise be called non-notable (we've had that debate too) except that he wreaks such havoc in the scientific community that you can't but notice him and explain the issues. He's a bit like Jade Goody who would be a nobody except she was so utterly stupid, and publicly so, that she became a celebrity. Cherish the thought...

I recently had a query from someone in central america because someone had used his Basque "stuff" in a thesis, causing no end of problems. That's the sort of knock-on effect he has.

Dealing with his linguistic work in a way that a non-expert can understand has proven to be the most workable solution and the section is ref'd to the hilt, so I really don't see the problem. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your opinions of Arnaiz's theories are completely irrelevant. You are not allowed to insert your opinions into articles. WP:V says "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", that's policy and not up for debate. Zero^talk 23:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not just our opinions, that's what makes us part of the mainstream and AAV fringe, but then one can't blame you for not having a background in basque studies. Added a ref. I can quote Trask on this point if you wish, he has some nice scathing statements on the topic. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, again, not our opinions. Calling him anything but a crackpot would be irresponsible of us as an encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your opinions of Arnaiz's theories are completely irrelevant. You are not allowed to insert your opinions into articles. So the fact that you want to put Arnaiz-Villena's views in a better light should not detain us. Also I don't find your claim to be a disinterested administator merely applying rules to be convincing. Your edit history suggests that you have a reason to present this individual in a less unflattering light. You are in fact seeking to flout WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. I am expressing myself dogmatically in this way simply to turn your own on-high manner of pronouncement back on you. However, you are of course at liberty to take the matter up at the appropriate discussion boards: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I don't doubt that this section can be improved, and perhaps rearranged. However, the first paragraph nowhere asserts that he is a "charlatan". It asserts that his views completely contradict established scholarship, which they do. The article exists because A-V superficially appears to be a "reliable source" due to his status as a scientist. However, I suggest you read his articles to see how junk history is jumbled up with genetics [19]. Paul B (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul you're repeating yourself. And it's hardly just kwami making them argument, I'm neither an admin nor bored though I AM tired of the amount of revisiting we're doing with this page. On the one hand you're agreeing that the sources rubbish his linguistics but at the same time you object to calling it rubbish? Could you please explain clearly what you're taking objection to cause I'm not getting it, perhaps by listing the sentence(s) here? Thanks Akerbeltz (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you are not getting it! I am not repeating myself. My reply is directed at Zero, as should be very obvious even though I have mistakenly inset it too deeply. I am repeating Zero's words back at him. I have reset the inset. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah - with you now, sorry about misreading you, mea culpa Akerbeltz (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Zero, you should read the archived talk pages before forming an oppinion. You may begin with this and also this.As a matter of fact, many versions of the alleged truth written by Symbio04 and friends (I would rather say puppets) have been proven to be false; and there has been wasted a considerable ammount of time and effort trying to corroborate his versions.

Symbio04 and friends (rather puppets) have been helped with ideas on how to prove his alleged truth. If he claims newspapers are lying he (or they) can ask for a rectification in the newspapers (why not?). He sometime suggested to send a scan onf the alleged sentence to John Vandenberg. Then he was suggested to do so. But then he claims he will not send anything to an anonymous nick. He was told that John Vandenberg was a real name. But then he said he will only send to yhe Wikipedia staff. Then I even showed the contact page and the mail to do so. He never did it. Why?

IMHO, espacially after all the edit warring he (and friends / puppets) mounted filling the Wikipedia with Arnaiz linguistics "ideas", launching explicit personal attacks against reputed experts (including false criminal accusations), the answer is obvious.

I suggest to block all his IPs (not many as far as I know) until he affords some new document. The contrary is only letting him to waste time and efforts of cabal editors time and again every time he is bored. If he really has something to say (by the newspapers or by proofs) he can do (and could have done) by a private mail, if he only wants to play with us, he should not be allowed. Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we really have to add links like this one or that one into the article? You may take umbrage at it, but none of that article violates WP:OR. We did not put a link behind every single phrase because every single one of them is perfectly uncontroversial among linguists. Trigaranus (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to visit WP:BLPN#Antonio Arnaiz-Villena issue #2 and explain how the rules don't apply to you. Zero^talk 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

I have integrated the Criticism section into the article. There is a general guideline that separate Criticism sections should be avoided (Wikipedia:Criticism sections), and criticism should be integrated into the article. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's mainly avoid the accummulation of a bundle of random complaints made about a person. In fact the linguistics section already integrates criticisms which, pace Zero, is the proper procedure. There was therefore no reason to have the criticism of the Greek study in a separate section, especially as it was not even properly identified as such. Paul B (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

BOTH ADMINISTRATIVE AND EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGES WERE CANCELLED BY JUDGES

[20]

1-Administrative Final-Sentence 1/04(Madrid Supreme Court) starts: “”En la villa de Madrid ,a 10 de Enero de 2004. Visto por la Sala de lo Contencios Administrativo el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid,constituida en Seccion por los Señores anotados al margen (Camino Vazquez Castellanos,Mercedes Moradas Blanco,Jose Luis Aulet Barros,Santiago de Andres Fuentes,Carmen Alvarez Theurer),el recurso de apelacion con el numero 1/04 ante la misma pende la resolucion interpuesto (sic) por la Procuradora D ALICIA OLIVA COLLAR,en representacion de D.CARLOS ANTONIO ARNAIZ VILLENA,contra la Sentencia de fecha 23 de Octubre de 2003 dictada por el juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo numero 8 de los de Madrid etc........TERCERO (pag 8).Esta sala Declara la nulidad de la resolucion impugnada.... This sentence annulls the Administrative charges of of Court No 8 Judge :they do not exist anymore (all these false charges were written in Wikipedia,and contained in Sentence annulled of Court No 8) 2-Judge Julio de Diego Lopez on Charge of Inquires Court No 23 (not Criminal Court):, January 6th 2006 :he closes down unbased embezzlement charges investigation after four years(!).They are not true.None of the accused people (four more than Arnaiz-Villena) were taken to trial into a criminal or administrative Court ever. 3-Yet, the case was finished in fact with Sentence 184 (February 19th 2003) from Tribunal Superior de Justicia presided by Judge Ines Garicano : AAV Constitutional Rights had been violated and AAV started again in the Health Service (he did not leave University ever).Arnaiz-Villena salary was always fully paid because the University did not believe any acusation.

These sentences should be looked for the people who is muddling up this living person biography Some have been already found apparently.Symbio04 (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please,let me know which section should be mended.

I would remove much ,including,newspapers scandals which were syndicated for starting and never finished.Also opinions in linguistics.I would leave only facts ,official documents,or published papers and books. There is a lot to do.I have seen other readers have the same opinion.Symbio04 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source or sources?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Several of these 'other readers' have been blocked as sockpuppet accounts. As Bbb23 says, please provide sources, since there has been evidence of mendacity from some editors on this talk page. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added the reference of the legal database where readers can find these documents[21]Symbio04 (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's like saying I've given you the address of a library where you can find what you need. You need to provide actual sources, not a collection where somewhere something might be found.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Only remember that Symbio-Arnaiz-etc promised to send the sentence that he said he has, 1) to an administrator (he failed); 2) then to an admnistrator of known name (he failed); and 3) to the Wikipedia foundation (failed again); and that I show one known-name-administrator who BTW had asked such document and I pointed the mail fo the Wiki Foundation asking him to mail them, or to ask a rectification to the newpapers he claim are libeling him, but he always fails. It was many, many, many, many months ago..... It is so boring. Symbio04, if you have no interest for doing what you asked to do, do not ask it to anybody else. Understood? First of all, if what you say is true, and newspapers are libeling you, ASK the newspapers a rectification!!! Send them any sentences you want... Why don't you do it instead of every time you has holidays complaining here without affording any proof? WHy don't you write to the newspapers if they are libeling? Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

I have opened an SPI into the users Iberomesornix and Symbio04. This is not to silence them or to overrule any of their objections but to establish whether they are the same person or not. (Of course, the reason why I requested the SPI is because I am 80 percent certain they are, for what it's worth.) I would prefer the user simply to restrict their activity to one single account, especially in light of how frequently he accuses me and other editors of deceit and hidden collusion. Trigaranus (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

SILENCING DISSIDENTS PARANOIACS

Trigaranus,I do not know what is SPI,but you should restrain yourself about contents and stop this silly people persecution.

Trigaranus,you have forgotten the work of John Bengtson,the late Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin and Merritt Ruhlen.All of them relate Basque language with Dene Caucasian languages including Basque[[22]].I will add the proper information these week.However,this is not a matter of a BLP ,thus I will put most of the staff in one or two lines:those supporters and those who are against.In addition,most of what A A-V has proposed had already been proposed before without such a detail,i.e.: [23].This is because I do not believe that you are against A-V because his Basque language work,but because another unknown matter,particularly after your sudden twist to defamate A-V with spurious legal matters. A-V is respected by all geneticians.He has written many papers (more than 320)on it and you focus his BLP on just 2 papers.Scientific reviewers and A-V geneticists fellows have accepted all his work ,except Palestinian paper and Greek paper in WP (both of them were peer reviewed,also).We must emphasize that the main results of both papers have been repeated by other laboratories (as specified on the Greek one in WP,but not with Palestinian one).I will have to summarize this also and put Mike Hammer and other results in Palestinians.Symbio04 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPI is short for sockpuppet investigation. I could not help the impression that you and Iberomesornix are actually the same editor using two accounts for reasons of your own. It would be greatly appreciated if you could help clarify that matter. Generally, one account should suffice.

As for the linguistics: Adorning yourself with famous names is entirely futile until one of them actually concedes that you have a feasible theory. Please learn the difference between positing a new language grouping (or a genetic link between so-far unrelated language families, as has been masterfully done for the newly-accepted Dene-Yeniseian group for example), and assuming that you can translate texts written in an ancient Semitic language by using a skewed version of modern Basque words. Until then, as far as linguistics go, it is perfectly pointless to pander to your notion that this is a debate. A debate needs equipollent propositions; and your position is not a theory yet, as it contradicts most of what we know about languages. I strongly do suggest that your theory, should it ever mature into one, include regular sound change and syntactic or morphological development. Or, heck, I'd already be happy with the slightest tinge of either syntax or morphology! So far it's been yadda yadda yadda (i.e. strings of syllables without syntax). And again, this is not about genetics. It's about a geneticist who, proficient though in his field, completely fails to realise that there are mechanisms present in language that could even be described as mutations (sound change: b->v) or genes (morphology: gen-et-ic-s). Would you take a geneticist seriously who evidently fails to notice that his study entails genes and mutations? Trigaranus (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough it was clearly stated that neither Bengtson, nor Starostin, nor Ruhlen have supported the Usko-Mediterranean lunacy, which they also found useless. Else, very simple, look at the journal Mother Tongue for a reference to Arnaiz or for one article written by him. Repeat the same false suggestion is a mockery. BTW Arnaiz is not a linguist, in any sense of the word. On Arnaiz as a genetist it was also stated that he has been severely criticised, and even put as an example in a handbook on how not to work. So "respected by all geneticians".....? All? Rather not.

On the rest, simple, send the sentences as you have been suggested many times (and in fact you was the first to suggest!), AFAIK in Spain legal sentences are public; so where is the problem? Maybe that the sentence does not say whay you tell? Because let us remember that this article has had many (changing) versions pro-Arnaiz on the legal issues which have been shown to be false (for instance it stated the end of the case without charges months before a sentence against him for the same case). Hence for further changes, evidence is needed.

And let me remember that you have been kindly helped suggesting to you several ways in which you could state your point (into the wikipedia and outside the wikipedia - as in the newspapers you say are lying -, which should be more important, isn't it?) but you show no interest in doing what you have been suggested, but only in repeating your (very nasty) complains. It is not what a honest innocent would do.

And on your alleged silence, just easy send your "linguistic" "researches" to any peer-reviewed linguistic publication; do not try to simulate an imaginary scientific prestige using the wikipedia, instead of fairly deserving it in the "real world". IMHO you have been trying, since your continuous tries of writing on usko-canarian (with which you filled many articles of self promotion) and similar lunatic ideas in the WIkipedia, you are only using wikipedia as an advertising system, simulating a prestige you do not have. You are trying to control and to manipulate wikipedia by means of your victimism. That is cheating. This is not Arnaiz-pedia. Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that neither of you (Trigaranus,Dumu Eduba,Kwamikagami,Akerbeltz) is useful for constructing a BLP in WP,in this case at least.Symbio04 (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Coming from you, Symbio04, that really made me laugh. Thank you :) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you,Akerbeltz,it was meant to make you laughingSymbio04 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012 Palestinians pdf (ref 5) is not working .It should be substituted by[24]

Reference 5 (Palestinians and HLA article) does not work. It should be substituted ,for example by [25] 147.96.14.16 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

done. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Extreme political writing"

There is no such phrasing within the provided reference.

The article does cite the board members of HI claiming that the author presented the socio-political issue from the perspective of one side of the conflict only, but it certainly is not alleged that the article contained any "extreme" elements whatsoever.

Given the negative connotations of the word's meaning, I wonder what justifies its use, and moreover what is the origin of this supposed quote.

66.234.52.49 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The phrase occurs in the Observer report, which is currently footnote 7. Probably it has become slightly disconnected from the quotation due to copy editing at some stage. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Showing official public documents that demonstrated that Arnaiz-Villena was falsely accused

Wikipedia has asked for claifying this section in 2010. We have spend quite a long time in gathering official public documents, which are now shown here, clarifying the paragraph. If Paul Barlow does not like the title, then it should be respected. But libels, ill and flase information from unreliable sources should be removed, since it does not help Wikipedia function on Knowledge. Wikipedia is asking for help in this particular case. The fact that the Arnaiz-Villena PhD student who falsely reported him got his post shows the moral an ethic degradation of the Spanish society. PortAngeles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, it's not very difficult to learn the basic rules for writing in an encyclopedic way. We have to give a descriptive title (not something like "Falsely accused in a conspiracy!!!!!"). We have to explain what happened, and give the outcome. We should support any contentious statements with sources. What you gave us was an uploaded scan of a document with no clear provenance. How do we know it is authentic? Even if it is, how can we be certain what the correct interpretation of it is? Yes, we can use primary sources (see wp:primary) but only in certain conditions. However, rules and red tape aside, I'm sure no-one here wants to include false information. If we can be sure that Arnaiz-Villena was cleared in the way you and some "other editors" (!) have stated we will, I'm sure, not stand on technicalities to keep the facts out if we can possibly include them. But the best way to achieve that is to be clear what the reports say, where they can be found, and to present them in a calm and orderly way. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is in brief what happened supported by official pùblic documents.If anybody wants to add anyhing else based on reliable sources it should be done.Paul please be reasonable .If you want adding anything else , please do it.But it is based in public documents which supports the case.Not the corrupted Spanish society of its reflection:newspapers.PortAngeles (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. Please resolve here first. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The uploaded documents should be identified and their content explained here. Paul B (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Any person or lawer may consult legal databases and see that documents content is true. In this section about accusations and legal matters affecting Arnaiz-Villena have been picked up and exposed from unreliable sources like not trustful newspapers and media. PortAngeles (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course we only have your word to go on that the papers are not trustworthy... Somehow I can't see that stacking up either, especially in the light of you repeated attempts to upload copyrighted material to Commons. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you explain, calmly and clearly, the contents of the documents here. Also, tell us where the outcome of the case has been reported - even if it's just in local newspapers or some bulletin at least we can claim that there is published confirmation of the facts. Paul B (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates 2013

Some interesting updates are shown in [26]. (Preceding sentence added by PortAngeles moved from main page). Paul B (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the ghastly formatting used by most participants, the only interesting thing to do would be checkuser... I bet many are the same person. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You are not the first to make that suggestion [27]. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Update and outcome of Accusations according to Official Sources

(As requested by Wikipedia)

Arnaiz-Villena has until now (2014) remained in both his Hospital and University posts. Details and outcome is found here. [[28]]. In this link you can see all original documents supporting the full history, which may easily be verifiable by the quoted (in each document) Spanish Official Bodies that issued documents.

The above content added by User:Philly93 has been moved from the article to the talk page, where it belongs. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

P.B., this is a European Union firm sentence issued by a Supreme Court closing down the case of false accusations against Arnaiz-Villena. You do not really believe that an European Community sentence issued by this type of court is “nonsense”. Do you? On the other hand Wikipedia is asking to update legal issues referring to Arnaiz-Villena since July 2010. This sentence does it. Could you please, state that this “sentence” is not “nonsense” and that it is “relevant” for updating legal issues as requested by Wikipedia? Thank you. --Norfolk202 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am just about fed yp with you and your ridiculous farm of sockpuppets. If you want to add useful information, it is not difficult to do so. You do not create headers in ALLCAPS. You may use primary sources, per wp:Primary. But your approach is to upload files and then cite the photos of the files. You have been doing this for YEARS. No one wants the information to be inaccurate, but we have to find a way to resolve this sensibly. Paul B (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314015916/http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urlordenpdf&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=CM_Orden_BOCM&blobwhere=1142567931852&ssbinary=true to http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urlordenpdf&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=CM_Orden_BOCM&blobwhere=1142567931852&ssbinary=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)