110.22.140.136

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (110.22.140.136) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Visigoths 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:

• power. Visigothic political structure had traditionally given extensive powers to local nobles (who even elected their kings, to be 'the first amongst equals,' and central authority was weak. The
• accounts of Visigothic Jewish history by Heinrich Graetz, ''History of the Jews'', Vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1956 reprint [1894], pp. 43-52 (on Sisibut, pp.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't add new text to sourced text

As. you did at Proto-Sinaitic script without showing its in the source. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

March 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Beta Israel, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lemba. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

For instance, "But it is similar to the percentage found in Jewish Kohanim, which is the relevant comparison, and much higher than the percentage generally found in other non-Jewish populations." is classical original research which is forbidden by policy - see WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If you must attack me, please do it for things I've actually done

Either you don't know how to read an edit history or you are being careless. I'm not sure which. You really need to be more careful and not accuse editors of deleting material they didn't delete, or writing summaries that are actually the material they really deleted. And you're accusing me of deleting material someone else deleted. You really need to read WP:AGF and be more civil. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have responded to these unjustified charges on the Talk Page of the article "Beta Israel," and have said enough there to deal with this subject. But I will summarize here. Frankly, I believe your whole approach all along has been an openly hostile one, unnecessarily threatening and abusive and not in the slightest conducive to courteous discussion. The intervention right from the start was the equivalent of shouting and rage. For this you owe me an apology, rather than me owing one to you. My contributions no matter how relevant their content were not treated as worthy of retention per se but just needing better phrasing. Rather, they were treated as warranting not just total deletion of the contributions and obliteration of their contents, but my outright expulsion from Wikipedia. It is precisely that heated and aggressive hostility explicitly from you at the very time my contributions were deleted that made it first seem to me that you were responsible for those deletions. For two weeks, from April 4th to April 18th, I patiently and courteously requested clarification of what I needed to change and revise in the chief one of my contributions, indicating that I was amenable to correction, but I particularly questioned what exactly was wrong with a paragraph from a previous contributor that had been deleted at the same time as my own paragraph, and which my paragraph followed, related to and amended. That previous contribution seemed to me to fulfil all the criteria that were being highlighted in your comments to me as lacking in my own, and the source research (Campbell et al.) was certainly highly relevant to the Beta Israel article, so I asked if there would even be a point in my revising my own contribution if it too would suffer the same seemingly arbitrary and unfair deletion some time later anyway. For two weeks I kept repeating this question about the Campbell et al. paragraph in our discussion together and emphasized its importance to my case, but you never answered it. That intentional seemingly guilty silence and refusal to disown the deletion indicated ownership of it to me, and gave me no reason to doubt it. There seemed no need for me to go back to the edit history and examine it more closely.

Then, suddenly, you created a new section on the "Beta Iarael" Talk Page in which you described the Campbell et al. research article on which the previous contribution had been based, writing about it without any apology for previous stalling or resistance, as if taking for granted that of course it was indeed relevant and basically acceptable, so that acceptability need not even be explained. This seemed a complete even if disingenuous turn-around. But, crucially, even then you ignored the question of why it had been deleted to begin with, and you did not in any way dissociate yourself from that nor disavow it. So I was still in the dark about that and my concerns had not really been addressed. Only in a comment a day later, on the 18th of April, did you finally state that someone else had deleted the paragraph on the Campbell et al. article, and then, quite typically, you turned this into a reproach to me, and even added another abusive notice about it on my own Talk Page, just above. There was no apology from you for your total refusal to clarify this for the previous two weeks. Presumably you were aware that you had not deleted it, all along, but merely refused to share this with me. You are the experienced editor at this webpage, not me. I am not familiar with Wikipedia processes, you are. Why I should apologize to you for all this high-handed arbitrariness is as opaque as many of your other comments have been.110.22.140.136 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Click on "View history" at the top of each page and you can see who edited what when. We also asked editors to use the WP:Edit summary feature which you will have seen just below the field I'm typing in. But perhaps you knew that at the time, I don't know. I also don't know how I could answer the question about why someone else deleted something. I did say earlier that I was busy. I didn't deliberately not share with you. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you why somebody else deleted something, I was asking you why you deleted something. You. That should have led you to clarify right at the start of this discussion, not two weeks later after repeated questions, that you had not deleted that paragraph, somebody else had, so you could not explain their motives. You should have referred me to the actual guilty party, Soupforone, so that my issues with that deletion could be addressed properly with him/her. And you might even, if you were fair-minded on the subject and desireous of enhancing the Beta Israel article, as well as clarifying Wikipedia standards, have remarked two weeks ago that you personally found no problem with the Campbell et al. paragraph: it met proper criteria in your view. That would have been reassuring. Even better, if you were so minded, you could have challenged Soupforone directly on the Talk Page for that deletion, asking him/her to justify it. But your silence was effectively blocking any clarification of these matters at all. You might have been busy over the past two weeks but on the other hand you were not so busy that you could not write further patronizing comments criticising me -- that you could do. A simple courteous statement that I should address myself to Soupforone would have taken no time at all to make, and would have prevented a lot of annoyance.110.22.140.136 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

---