User talk:CadAPL

Welcome![edit]

Hello, CadAPL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not cite Zecharia Sitchen or works derived from his ideas[edit]

Sitchen's claims of Sumerian UFOs are considered fringe and not accepted on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ian.thomson : Ironically, there are billions of people who believe in different gods and each one considers his god is the only legit one ! I wonder why Muslims kill themselves and many innocent non-muslim people on the streets ! they follow a god who in his Quran has ordered them to kill other infidel humans (created by him) wherever they find them !!! Who are the psychopaths and schizophrenics that believe in such complete nonsense ?! at least Sitchin was trying to translate the source of the monotheistic religions' myths ! CadAPL (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ian.thomson : Have you ever heard of Max de Lafayette ?! He has multiple dictionaries of ancient languages and scores of books but still he does not even have a Wikipedia page to publicize him !! CadAPL (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accomplish anything here, you're going to have to make responses that aren't full of red herrings.

Sitchen wasn't translating anything -- he's been shown to use a mixture of mistakes and fantasy. Sitchen's ideas are completely rejected by mainstream scientists and academics -- and Wikipedia sides with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ian.thomson : Yeah exactly just like the people who say that Islam is a peaceful religion !! and they are hundreds of Millions !! those alleged scientsts claim that Sitchin is crazy, and he might be mistranlated the Sumerian langauage but non of them has tried to translate the tablets writen by Enki !! No one knows Max de Lafayette who has dictionaries ! and still some people think those hard-working people are crazy and untrustworthy !! CadAPL (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Competence is required here and your continued Islamophobic red herrings call that into question. Do you want to edit here or not? Mainstream academia doesn't reject Sitchen because of some religious belief, they reject his ideas because he has provided no good evidence for them.

Simply put: All Wikipedia does is summarize mainstream academic and journalistic sources. It does not care about original research, it does not care about what you personally have faith in (no matter how zealous you clearly are about it). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ian.thomson : Islamophobia then !! this statement can tell all the story !! I wonder who are those geniuses who claim that they can translate better than Sitchin ! hope not some religious people who want to discredit Sumerian texts for the sake of their stolen myths ! Anyway, I do not want to enter in editing conflicts so if you can't accept Sitchin .. it is fine ! CadAPL (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to 'ping' someone you need to do something like {{ping|CadAPL}} and sign your post. If anything goes wrong, you have to start a new post, you can't fix it. As for de Layfayette, you mean Maximillien[1] as Max is in the hospitality field.[2] I see he claims to have written 2500 books. Aren't computers marvelous. Love to see an official statement he did a translation for my old university, Yale. I guess the reason he can't get his dictionaries published properly is a conspiracy? Anyway, Sitchin has no qualifications. I was told once by a Professor of Sumerian studies that one of his 2nd year undergraduates could translate Sumerian better (did you know Sumerian is taught in undergraduate courses? What tablets written by Enki haven't been translated (I need official names that can be sourced to archaeological sources of course to show they really exist)>

Anyway, the main thing I'm here for is to tell you to drop your discussion of religion, particularly attacks on other religions. It's completely inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: So you are making fun of Max (who is by the way using a French name, he is originally a Lebanese lawyer who can speak at least seven languages) albeit you have not read his dictionaries about ancient languages ! you believe some random views about him being deluded based on his girlfriend, or his other writings regarding different sectors of life ! we are only concerned about the translation of ancient writings ! And now you claim that you have been told by an unknown professor that a student can do better than Sitchin ! how ridiculous ! it is the same cheap tactics used by the media as well, such as "the guardian" newspaper which daily tries to make Trump seem like a spy for Russia or someone who is going to do another Holocaust to his people ! Regarding the tablets, I did not read any book in which it shows the archaeological sources such as the cuneiform writings ! finally, religions are the main reason which makes these ancient records myths, even though they stole all their "miracle stories" from them, and you still blame me for attacking religions ! CadAPL (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your attacks on The Guardian are irrelevant and have nothing to do with whether or not Zechariah Sitchin's writings are credible. The simple fact remains that they are not credible in any way. In fact, Sitchin has so little credibility in mainstream scholarship that citing his works is likely to get you laughed out of the room. Sitchin's writings display his complete and utter ignorance of all matters relating to Near Eastern studies and world mythology. His interpretations of Sumerian texts demonstrate that he clearly possesses no understanding at all of what the texts actually say. He repeatedly misconstrues Sumerian words to mean things completely different from what the words actually mean. For instance, he interprets the Akkadian word "shamu" as being derived from "SHU.Mu" and asserts that word means "rocketship," claiming that the first part of the word means "that which" and that the second part means "that which rises straight." In reality, the word is not derived from "SHU.MU" and actually means "rain." This is only one of many examples of Sitchin's deliberate misinterpretations of Sumerian words and phrases to suit his agenda.

Mainstream scholarship has unanimously repudiated Zechariah Sitchin's claims for the simple reason that there is absolutely no evidence to support them. There is not a single credible scholar who has expressed any support whatsoever for anything Sitchin has proposed. Here are some links to websites debunking his works:

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/, a website written and edited by Michael Heiser, a real Near Eastern scholar with an actual degree in a relevant field
https://ancientneareast.org/tag/sitchiniswrong-com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/05/will-the-mysterious-shadow-planet-nibiru-obliterate-earth-in-october-no/ an article from one of the most respected newspapers in the country explaining why the "Nibiru cataclysm" is a hoax

I would like to emphasize that I am not trying to attack you or insult you. I am merely trying to educate you about the reasons why Sitchin is not credible. Your repeated attacks on religion are not only irrelevant here since they have nothing to do with the subject at hand, but also wildly inappropriate. Here at Wikipedia, we are trying to build an encyclopedia that relies on facts, not opinions. Regardless of how much you may hate religious people, this is not the place for you to express that hatred. Modern religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam did not steal their stories from the ancient Sumerians. In actuality, these stories have very diverse origins, which are far too complicated to explain here on this talk page --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai: So now you are just defending "the Guardian" which is a pathetic biased cheap newspaper, and you claim that "modern" religions did not take any of the "miracles" from previous ancient myths ... ahm .. flying donkeys ... Jesus/Horus, Moses/Sargon, The story of creation ... etc !!!

Anyway, you gave links to people who have their own stories about certain words to translate !! people still argue about the etymology of cities, things and many others so how about an extinct language. During the caliphate period, muslim scholars started to explain the disambiguous words in "Arabic" Quran, but nowadays studies indicate that 80% of Quran is NOT "Arabic" and the explanations are far from being correct, as it borrows words and texts from Aramaic, and there are many books show that such as the book titled "the qur'an misinterpreted mistranslated and misread", hundred of millions of muslims read wrong meanings so you can tell where the problem here is ! I do not claim that Sitchin is right nor wrong ! but YOU are the ones who attack Sitchin and accuse him of being a fringe writer and all other writers who cite his works are deluded and believe in the "Conspiracy theory" !

All the people who believe in a planet that is going to hit Earth because of ancient texts are shameful as you referred to the another beauty "Washington Post". Who reads these useless newspapers which claim that they can and must influence public opinion ?!

As I mentioned earlier if you do not accept Sitchin that is fine, but do not tell me that religious people do not have a hand in discrediting the Sumerian literature and considering them as myths. CadAPL (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and The Washington Post are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. If you have a problem with that, leave. And stop with the red herrings, already. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't believe the bit about his girlfriend, it isn't sourced. And his dictionaries are self-published, he has no academic papers on ancient languages, etc, so nope, I don't take him seriously. The unnamed professor was Piotr Michalowski, the George G. Cameron Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. See his comments here. Sitchin's article quotes another Professor of linguistics who reviewed one of his books (I have several myself) saying "Sitchin's linguistics seems at least as amateurish as his anthropology, biology, and astronomy. On p. 370, for example, he maintains that "all the ancient languages ... including early Chinese ... stemmed from one primeval source -- Sumerian". Sumerian, of course, is the virtual archetype of what linguistic taxonomists call a language-isolate, meaning a language that does not fall into any of the well-known language-families or exhibit clear cognation with any known language. Even if Sitchin is referring to written rather than to spoken language, it is unlikely that his contention can be persuasively defended, since Sumerian ideograms were preceded by the Azilian and Tartarian signaries of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers." Doug Weller talk 13:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping I would not have to explain this. Virtually all mainstream historians unanimously agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed historically, although it is widely disputed to what extent the gospels are accurate accounts of his life, with some historians arguing that the gospels are mostly unreliable. Nonetheless, there are three details that virtually all historians agree on: Jesus grow up in the town of Nazareth in Galilee, that he was baptized by John the Baptist sometime around 29 A.D., and that he was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate. The alleged parallels between Jesus and Horus are a conspiracy theory with no factual basis whatsoever invented out of whole cloth by the nineteenth-century pseudohistorian Gerald Massey. Massey simply made up his own stories about Horus in imitation of Christian stories about Jesus and then attributed those stories to nonexistent “Egyptian texts.” Since most people at the time could not read hieroglyphics, many non-experts were fooled by his claims, even though he himself probably did not really understand hieroglyphics either. The truth is, there is no connection whatsoever between Jesus and Horus. Horus was a warrior deity with the head of a falcon, who bears essentially no resemblance whatsoever to the Biblical Jesus, a first-century Jewish apocalyptic preacher.

As I understand it, most historians generally reject the idea that Moses existed historically, but, in any case, the stories about him are definitely not derived from stories about Sargon. The earliest stories about Moses’s life come from the Yahwistic Source, probably written sometime around 950 B.C. possibly during the reign of King Solomon (whose historical existence is disputed to some extent—a debate not worth delving into in this context). By contrast, the story about Sargon being drawn from the river dates to a pseudepigraphical text from the seven century B.C., roughly two hundred years after the earliest stories about Moses. Moses probably originated a Jewish mythical culture hero, whose stories were later embellished and historicized.

The oldest part of the Genesis Creation story (Genesis 2:4b-4:26) probably comes from the Yahwistic Source and generally bears minimal traces of Mesopotamian influences. The younger part of the story (Genesis 1:1-2:4b) probably comes from the Priestly Source, and does demonstrate indications of possible influence from Babylonian literature, particularly the Enuma Elish.

I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention “flying donkeys” as I am not aware of any religious texts that mention any such creatures. I will admit that I am not an expert in these matters and I am certainly not infallible, but I have read a great deal about this subject, which I think should at least earn me some minimal degree of credibility. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Kinda Hanna. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdates etc of living persons[edit]

We require excellent sources for this sort of information. If you think your source suffices, then you can ask if others agree by going to WP:RSN. As an experienced editor I don't think it does. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

May 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Aqarib, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Are you kidding me? I have included the source, and you can check the incident by just using google !! women and children were being slaughtered while your only concern is a "reliable source" ! for me the shitty CNN, the guardian, new york times, and many shitty others are not reliable sources ! CadAPL (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D'Oh! I didn't see your first edit, just the second one. Your edits have been restored. My apologies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning[edit]

If I thought you intended to make any more edits, ever, like this one, I would block you indefinitely. This sort of thing is not welcome on Wikipedia. Do you intend to do more like this? --John (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Are you threatening me, you little M* fanboy ?! Anyway, no one blames you because liberalism is a mental illness ! CadAPL (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've blocked you indefinitely. If you want to edit here, you can post an {{unblock|your reason here}} template. If you intend to do this, you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :I was just about post a very similar warning. These [3] [4] [5] are unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting an anti-Muslin agenda, especially when you combine it with personal attacks of fellow editors. Your edits on 2017 Manchester Arena bombing do not reflect what is verifiable in reliable sources and further suggest that you are trying to promote a point of view. If you continue in this fashion, including calling other editors M* fanboys, I will request that your editing privileges be removed. That's a promise.- Mr X 20:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I guess I was few seconds too late.- Mr X 20:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CadAPL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Ponyo: I want to retrieve my main account so I can edit without being accused of sock puppetry ! I did not misuse any account but you always block me for the aforementioned reason ! Why dont you give me my main account then ?! CadAPL (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. Talkpage go bye-bye now. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

CadAPL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20942 was submitted on Mar 20, 2018 22:41:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

CadAPL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20943 was submitted on Mar 21, 2018 00:13:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

User has engaged in block evasion as ExtraSaviour (talk · contribs) in October, 2018. User is probably de-facto banned rather than blocked, under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again as checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet, M900417 in July, 2020. --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

CadAPL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22959 was submitted on Oct 16, 2018 04:25:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]