User talk:SuzanneOlsson/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Repeated addition of unsourced material and original research

Please do not add original research and unsourced material as you did in this edit, once again. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Foul Play History 2007. The only one guilty of disruptive editing here is you. Exactly what part of that entry was "poorly sourced"? You already removed the sources I provided. You don't play fair. You edit like a bully with an agenda. Shame on you. You should be blocked for deliberately planting false information on this wiki page, such as the untruths about the first appearance of the Christian cross. When I tried to correct that, I got blocked. Your bias and prejudice are now glaringly apparent. You have slanted information in too many ways. You really are a very bad "editor" here at Wiki, guilty of the worse kind of distortion of information..SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

I am sorry, I did not remove any of your text that I complained about in the above. I only tagged it as needing better sources. History2007 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that much of your text was removed in this edit by another editor, and I think rightly so given that you specifically thanked that editor yourself, said the "page looks really wonderful now" after he had deleted your material, and offered to send him a copy of your book. He did very well in fact, as all agreed on the talk page. I never stated on the talk page that the "Cross" was not an early Christian symbol. I stated on the talk page that the "Rosary" was not an early Christian symbol. Note that you had used the term carved images of a crucifix and a rosary in the material removed in that edit. I never stated on the talk page that a "Cross" was not an early Christian symbol. I specifically stated that about the "Rosary", and I will say that again: the Rosary was a 13th century item. Please be careful about what you state. History2007 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. I have become paranoid dealing with some Wiki editors. Why would he just "stumble in" and decide to make those edits and block me? Random acts of editing? Hmmm. I did thank an editor, then his edits started getting edited...and changed. I thought you were familiar enough with the material to know the background story about the "Rosary beads" as Hassnain called them. This was later challenged and the description changed. The fact is they have been totally scratched out by the local caretakers and dont even exist anymore. There is also a sword in a stone that appears in several books about the tomb. Hassnain called this a cross, but others identified it as a sword. Regardless, one thing no one has EVER raised issue with (except you) is the authenticity of the relics. I have not seen all the information contained in the Archaeology Survey of India reports. I am not sure if they are even published outside a few places. They contain reports substantiating the claimed age of the relics. All that remains to be done is carbon 14 dating, which till now has been blocked by the caretakers. The situation is this: The Ahmaddis are considered a sect by all other Muslim groups. They are not even allowed to call themselves Muslims or perform Haj (required visit to mecca by all Muslims). The rate at which they are persecuted is appalling. Every effort has been made to discredit them and their beliefs. Hassnain was a Sunni Muslim when he, and other Sunni Muslims, and Hindus, worked for the India Archaeology Survey. Every chance they got they would have taken to discredit the relics, thus discrediting the very foundations of Ahmaddii beliefs. But what happened? Instead of discrediting the Ahmaddis, Hassnain also became a believer (in the authenticity of the relics). The evidence withstood their examination and not one- NOT ONE- professional archaeologist/historian has ever come forward and caste doubt on the authenticity of the relics, although it was within their religious beliefs to do so any way they could. I am shocked that you question the authenticity of the relics. This has never ever been an issue and should not be in the future. I have begged for these relics to be well documented and carbon 14 dated. What is holding this p is the attitude of the caretakers. They don't want any proof that might help the Ahmaddi position. It is that simple. And that complicated. I hope you are not making things worse by the way you are slanting things on the Roza bal pageSuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

Well, that is a detailed "content discussion" now. What I was pointing out was that I referred to Rosary and not Cross, and that I did not delete your text. History2007 (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, including edit warring to include unsourced or inadequately sourced content, as you did at Roza Bal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Killer Chihuahua 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been victim of editors with agendas here at Wiki. This has been ongoing for 5 years. The problems raised are always initiated by DougWeller and an occasional editor who joins his ranks, as the current editor calling himself History2007. I am accused of COI and being a worthless self-published writer posting pseudo-history. These editors have included self-published fictional editors as reference material while eliminating more serious scholarly works. I believe it is apparent the page Roza Bal is being edited to make it appear a joke, based on 'faked relics' from the 13th and 4th centuries. There is no basis for this claim. It is completely made up by the editor. That has never EVER before been an issue raised about the relics at Roza Bal tomb. Photos of the relics appear in almost every book written about Roza Bal. I included one of the books, 'The Fifth Gospel' by Fida Hassnain, and included sources. These have been removed. The information appearing under 'Relics" has been edited to seemingly support the idea the relics are fake. The evidence to support their authenticity can and should be included. Much of this has been removed. A statement made by History2007 that crosses/crucifixes were not in use to represent Christianity during the first and second century is a blatantly false statement. Further, calling a cross on a string "Rosary Beads' may be an innocent error by someone not familiar with the religion of Christianity. When I tried to correct this, I was suddenly blocked for "disruptive editing". The only thing I did disruptive was to point out the falsehoods in another editor's statements. I even pointed to the Wiki page that supported the correct facts. I believe these editors are acting in a very irresponsible way, allowing only negative information about Roza bal that supports their very biased views, deleting books on a whim, even those by respected scholars in India. I would like the ban on my editing removed. I would like to revise that entire page to remove their bias and religious prejudices. To allow the page to stand as it is, is an affront to the true spirit of Wikipedia. For me this is not about a COI but about presenting the truth in a fair and balanced manner. If I dont stand up for fair and balanced Wiki pages, then who will? Please remove the block. It was placed unfairly. Thank You. Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are, I am afraid, serious problems with your editing. If you cannot see that, then I suggest spending some of the time of this block looking back at your editing history, and particularly your interactions with other editors, and try to imagine how it will look to an impartial outside observer. I am such an outside observer, never having been aware of your existence until I came here to assess this unblock request, and, to help you, I will give you a brief summary of how it looked to me when I arrived here and looked at your history.

Most of your comment in this unblock request do not address the reasons for the block, but simply tell us that you think everyone else is wrong, that you are the victim of a conspiracy, that anyone who disagrees with you is "biased" and "prejudiced", etc etc. Apparently you don't see that this kind of stuff is one of the major reasons why you are blocked, and that doing it in an unblock request serves only to confirm the validity of the block. It is certainly not likely to get you unblocked. It is clear that your whole perspective is coloured by your single-minded concern with the notion that you are RIGHT and anyone who expresses an opposing view is WRONG. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bias, prejudice, being part of a conspiracy, lying, etc etc. You persistently edit with about as blatant a conflict of interest as I have ever seen in a Wikipedia editor. You make endless attempts to use Wikipedia to promote and publicise your own work and your own opinions. You show no ability or willingness to collaborate, compromise, or to be willing to consider others' points of view, but instead exhibit a battleground attitude to all other editors. You show no respect at all for the principal that Wikipedia works by consensus, preferring the view that you know best, so your opinion should prevail. You edit war to try to force your versions of articles through. By your own account, the problem has existed for five years. I see that you yourself have used the word "paranoid" in reference to your attitude to other Wikipedia editors, and that is exactly how it looks from my perspective: paranoia, where anyone and anything that does not fit with your view is seen as an attack on you and on the truth. You say "I have been victim of editors with agendas here at Wiki". You may like to consider whether seeing yourself as a "victim" may be part of the very paranoia you refer to, and also to ask yourself who is likely to look to an impartial observer as though they have come here with an agenda. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

Thanks James Watson. In the first place, I appear here at Wiki about once a year to check for dead links and repair them. That's all. Every time I do, DougWeller appears . I think he secretly has a crush on me. ;-) So do not accuse me of blatant self-promotion. During this last round, I asked and suggested to make changes to include the relics and other books and sources., to help the Roza Bal page, which had been reduced to 3-4 small paragraphs by editors. It turned into a mess but I stood my ground in defense of balanced presentations here at Wiki. The issue is not COI or self-promotion. I have web sites for that. I object to clear bias in construction of the Roza Bal article, which is construed to promote a Christian agenda with no tolerance for ideas beyond Christian fundamentalism. The relics, the mention of Jesus after crucifixion, it all is part of the reason why the tomb in Kashmir might be connected historically with Jesus. Instead of inserting anything that might balance the reporting,the article is slanted to appear that all serious research into Roza Bal can be dismissed as a hoax, and everyone who investigates the claims is somehow a hoaxer or a fraud, or in other ways made to appear less than trustworthy or sane. Negative comments reflecting views of fundamentalist Christians are emphasized. A case in point would be deleting all reference to the ancient relics found at the tomb, or, as one editor suggested, claiming they are 13th/14th century hoaxes. No such proof ever existed. It was apparently made up in the editor's head and is not what the Archaeology Survey of India research concludes. It is false information. My recent presence here has nothing to do with "self-promotion." Author Holger Kersten is also labeled a quack and dismissed as unreliable. Only one derogatory quote in existence about him is used, instead of all the praise and support for his work. Holger Kersetn is a graduate of Freiburg University. He has a degree in comparative religions and the study of educational methods. Only one negative comment was made in the entire world, and it appears here while the overwhelming support for Kersten is never mentioned. The Bible has 12 accounts of Jesus surviving crucifixion, not to mention independent witnesses outside the Bible. I was blocked for not sourcing properly, yet earlier I did provide sources and asked for time to gather more. The sources I did provide were removed. I am not promoting my book or my views here. I was hoping for fair and balanced editing about the Roza Bal article and that is not happening. I am given a list of pages that I cannot edit on, although I haven't edited on them anyway and they've existed for years at Wikipedia. Why was this brought up? To create a further bad image about my presence here? None of those topics was an issue for me because those pages were created and maintained by different editors and those editors HAVE been fair and balanced. Thank you for your reply. I'll take the 1 week ban instead. Others who come here to read about Roza Bal will instantly realize the real issues. You have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

Ms Olsson, I will respond above. But your assertions about my statements are less than accurate, as above. History2007 (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

History2007, I am disappointed in you. I dont see having any further dialogue with you. According to the terms laid down about lifting the ban, you, Doug Weller, are free to write anything you want on the Roza Bal page, and I wont be challenging you. I feel hurt, sad, angry, and disappointed by the slanted prejudices of the Roza Bal page. There is nothing more I can say or do. So have at it. You've won the editing battle with me. Good for you. Bad for Roza Bal fair and balanced reporting. By the way, prayer beads have been in use long before Christianity. It may have started in India, passed on to Buddhism, then Christianity, then Islam. Hassnain may have erred calling them Rosary Beads, when the description 'prayer beads' would have been more fitting. But don't let that minor detail stop you. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

Hello SuzanneOlsson. It's my guess that the blocking admin would lift your sanction if you would agree *not* to make any more edits to articles in areas where you have a conflict of interest. You would not edit any Wikipedia articles on topics where you have written any books or articles yourself or posted anything on your own website, www.rozabal.com. That would include anything about the lost years of Jesus or the topic of Jesus in the East. You could not create any new articles on people who have written about these topics. In particular you would have to avoid the following articles:

You would not be able to edit these articles directly, but you could still post on their talk pages. You would agree to edit Wikipedia under only one single account, and not recruit anyone from off Wikipedia to edit these articles. You would agree to leave any questions about the scope of this restriction to the judgment of other editors at WP:COIN or any admin noticeboard. Let me know if you will make this agreement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ed Johnston, Judgement of other editors? And which editors might that be? The biased ones who have tried to make a joke and mockery of Roza Bal? Perhaps you should also forbid me to edit other things I mentioned in my book: information about DNA, terrorism, YuzAsaf, history of religions, comparative religions, crucifixion, Buddhism, Saint Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Mother Mary, Murree, Pakistan, Noah, Moses, Bible, Brahma, Sarasvati, tomb of Joseph in Sechem, cultural terrorism, ...and more. Well, I may have to do editing at Craig List as History2007 suggested. Do what you want. I am too disheartened by this to even respond to you. In my humble opinion, the whole historical concept of Roza bal and Yuz Asaf are about to reach a new low. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

This doesn't sound to me like "I understand the concern and am willing to comply with WP policies." It is possible that this editor is able to contribute by providing tangible directions to (non-self published) print sources, and that would be welcomed. This contribution would need to be first demonstrated on Talk pages, not by direct editing of COI articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the above response reminded me of what user:Fullstop said in 2008: "her assumption that she (and only she) is the sole arbitrator of truth". I think what is observed here may be a manifestation of that assumption, and that is why WP:RS sources are not the focus of the discussions. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Manifestation of that assumption, that only "I" know the truth"...I do not know all truths,I do recognize outright lies, errors, and bias, such as trying to mislead people to believe that the relics are 13th century frauds....when not a shred of evidence exists to support your personal "theory".. by the way In ictu oculi, I did post sources. They were deleted. I certainly do understand wiki policies...and see them violated by the very same editors who would then find so much fault with me. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

As the blocking admin, I would indeed unblock if the terms suggested by EdJohnston were adhered to; I would however specify no editing of any religious articles at all, not merely of Jesus in the East or the Lost years, for a period of not less than one year, the topic ban could be re-examined after that point. Whether you accept this unblock offer or not, you are put on notice; if I see you trying to use your own book as a source, I will block you again for tendentious editing and self-promotion. Killer Chihuahua 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would support this with the extension you suggest. I'll also note for the record that Roza Bal is on my watchlist, so unless I'm on a break I see every edit to it. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In the first place, I appear here at Wiki about once a year to check for dead links and repair them on only two pages, Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf. That's all. Every time I do, DougWeller appears because I'm on his 'watch list' . I think he secretly has a crush on me. ;-) So do not accuse me of blatant self-promotion. During this last round, I asked and suggested to make changes to include the relics and other books and sources to help the Roza Bal page, which had been reduced to 3-4 small paragraphs by editors. This was agreed to.It turned into a mess but I stood my ground in defense of balanced presentations here at Wiki. The issue is not COI or self-promotion. I have web sites for that. I object to clear bias in construction of the Roza Bal article, which is construed to promote a Christian agenda with no tolerance for ideas beyond Christian fundamentalism. The relics, the mention of Jesus after crucifixion, it all is part of the reason why the tomb in Kashmir might be connected historically with Jesus. Instead of inserting anything that might balance the reporting,the article is slanted to appear that all serious research into Roza Bal can be dismissed as a hoax, and everyone who investigates the claims is somehow a hoaxer or a fraud, or in other ways made to appear less than trustworthy or sane. Negative comments reflecting views of fundamentalist Christians are emphasized. A case in point would be deleting all reference to the ancient relics found at the tomb, or, as one editor suggested, claiming they are 13th/14th century hoaxes. No such proof ever existed. It was apparently made up in the editor's head and is not what the Archaeology Survey of India research concludes. It is false information. My recent presence here has nothing to do with "self-promotion." Author Holger Kersten is also labeled a quack and dismissed as unreliable. Only one derogatory quote in existence about him is used, instead of all the praise and support for his work. Holger Kersetn is a graduate of Freiburg University. He has a degree in comparative religions and the study of educational methods. Only one negative comment was made in the entire world, and it appears here while the overwhelming support for Kersten is never mentioned. The Bible has 12 accounts of Jesus surviving crucifixion, not to mention independent witnesses outside the Bible. I was blocked for not sourcing properly, yet earlier I did provide sources and asked for time to gather more. The sources I did provide were removed. I am not promoting my book or my views here. That is also false information. Ban me for a year? Now you really are laying on the tar and featghers! That is totally unwarented and excessive, I have done absolutely nothing to warrent that. I was hoping for fair and balanced editing about the Roza Bal article and that is not happening. I am given a list of pages that I cannot edit on, although I have never edited on them anyway and they've existed for years at Wikipedia. Why was this brought up? To create a further bad image about my presence here? I have never used my own book for a source..that too is a blatant error intended to mislead. None of those topics was an issue for me because those pages were created and maintained by different editors and those editors HAVE been fair and balanced. I'll take the 1 week ban instead. Others who come here to read about Roza Bal conflicts will instantly realize the real issues. They have become very transparent by now. You have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

You are not banned, for one week or any period. You cannot "take the one week ban" because you have no ban to "take". You are blocked. Please read the linked pages so you do not make the same error again. I am suggesting you be topic banned for a year, and that is likely to happen whether you wish it or not. You will still be able to edit all of Wikipedia except those pages which fall under the general category of religious topics, broadly construed. Do you understand the difference now, and what a topic ban means, and what a block means? Please limit your reply to what I have written here, and do not waste time and space writing about other editors at all. Killer Chihuahua 14:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should I be banned for a year? That is assuming I did something terribly wrong, and I did not. I have not edited anything here for years except the occassional broken link. The conflict with other Wiki editors always revolves around actions initiated by Doug weller and spirals from there. I did not self-promote, I listed most sources immediately and asked for a day or so to locate the additional sources (which I have). I have not edited any of those "other" pages at Wikipedia, religious content or otherwise ...not one. When a paragraph at Roza bal was deliberately inaccurate or misleading, I spoke up, mainly in consideration of the religious sensitivities of others such as the Ahmaddiss. So what justification do you feel warrants these excessive blocks on me? SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

You would not be site banned, you would be topic banned. You would be allowed to edit all of Wikipedia except religious articles. Do you understand that no one is (currently) talking about site banning you, only about topic banning you? Also, what part of me telling you not to write about other editors did you fail to comprehend? Do not blame Doug Weller or any other editor; I blocked you due to your own actions. You need to stop accusing others. Killer Chihuahua 14:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it's all my fault, but I did not edit or self promote any pages here at Wiki that warrant these "topic blocks." This appears to be 'made-up' and punitive. Couldn't I just buy you coffee and a box of donuts and call it settled? By the way, I have two killer Maltese. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

I'm going to try one last time. There is no such thing as a "topic block". You are not banned. No one is talking about a general site ban. I am talking about a topic ban. Please read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK, and study them until you are absolutely certain you understand the difference between a block, a topic ban and a site ban. Until you do, we cannot possibly communicate effectively. Your ignorance bars any meaningful dialogue. Killer Chihuahua 15:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Chihuahua..site ban-topic ban-block-yes sir! I've got it! It's not ignorance, it's a devastatingly hectic morning here and I am still trying to give you full 100% attention and responses. Sorry if I err, but be assured I have been putting you first all morning..More coffee? SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

It's either ignorance, or an appalling lack of care on your part. Block and ban are not synonyms, and you've been using them as if they were. As a side note, I am female. "Yes sir" is inappropriate. Killer Chihuahua 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You are female? WOOHOO! Delighted to hear thaty. My son died a few days ago. We are having a memorial service here today. I have done the best I can under circumstances to pay attention and respond to you. Today is probably one of the most 'ignorant' days of my life, yet I am still trying to respond so you dont think I'm ignoring you. I'm just heavily and emotionally overburdened today...But you have my attention! Thank you mam. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne Olsso~~

You have my deepest sympathies, I cannot begin to fathom the depth of your loss. There is no need to respond here quickly; please take care of your personal business and return here only when you feel up to it. Killer Chihuahua 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DAM IT! Stop being so nice. Now you made me cry. All week I've been beating up DougWeller and History2007- if they hadn't been available, I probably would have hit a cop and spent this week in jail. It's been hard..really hard. I want to scream at the whole universe. Thank you for your kind words. There are expected 25-30 people here today- I'm rushing between front door and kitchen...It'll be a long hard day. If we can resume this late tonight or tomorrow morning, that would be best. Blessings, Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

I'm not sure how much I'll be able to be here tomorrow and Sat as I have company coming this weekend, but I will try to check when I can spare a moment. Post whenever you like, I will reply when I can. Again, I am so, so sorry to hear of this loss. Killer Chihuahua 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As for Holger Kersten, surely no one here said anything worse than " The noted German scholar of New Testament Apocrypha Wilhelm Schneemelcher, in a revision of his standard work prior to his death in 2003, and in unusually strong language for the scholarly community states that Kersten's work is based on "fantasy, untruth and ignorance (above all in the linguistic area)" and "has nothing to do with historical research."[14]Gerald O'Collins and Daniel Kendall view that "Kersten's discredited book" is simply the repackaging of Notovich and Ahmad's material for consumption by the general public.[15]" If they are critical it isn't unreasonable to expected editors here to be crirical. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Was he a Christian critic, Doug? That makes a huge difference on his interpretation. For those with Christian inclinations, suggesting that Jesus survived beyond crucifixion is blasphemy and every effort is made to discredit such claims.

I suspect they all are. Specialists in the New Testament usually are. I think I forgot to say how sorry I am for your loss - I'm glad I've been available as a punchbag. Kirsten can't be used for factual assertions but his views might be appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor note that this issue is not a Muslim/Christian scholarly debate, and the Ahmadi views which are the subject of this discussion are not supported by mainstream Muslims at large, and those scholars do not accept them. On the other issue, some of the most respected New Testament scholars such as Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes or Paula Fredriksen are Jewish. And there are Japanese scholars such as Wataru Mizugaki, etc. After much searching we have not seen any mainstream scholars from major universities writing books that support the Roza Bal hypothesis, hence the self-published issues. If one searches for global warming, there are views on all sides. Here there are not. I will, however, have to stop watching this page and the Roza Bal page for I have spent far more time on it than ever intended. I had already offered my condolences to Ms Olsson on article talk, but let me offer them again now. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear All, Thank you for kind wishes and condolences. I can think of little to add. Holger Kersten spent several weeks in Srinagar, and became fast friends with several scholars there, including Aziz Kashmiri and Dr. Hassnain. They are in touch to this day (as best as men of their age can be) and exchange research related to Roza Bal. I dont know what if anything Holger Kersten wrote about the esoteric. I know he has written extensively in German, scholarly books related to the field of education (his special area of expertise) as related to me by Professor Hassnain. This is why I believe that reviewer was biased and unfair. He classed one book by Kersten as writing "fantasy, untruths, and ignorance"...I could not finish Kersten's book. He drifted off on some Buddhist quest to the end. I couldn't follow him. From all that I've read on the topic, I think the best research by far has been done by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He was clearly intent on destroying Christian beliefs, believing they would then see the 'truths' of Islam and convert.Regardless what anyone believes about his claims, the relics of Roza Bal have existed and acknowledged at least since the 1700's court case. I dont know what documents exist in India to support the historicity of the tomb. Much has still never been translated from Sanskrit and Urdu and Hindi and Farsi.Hassnain and others who can read these languages have more knowledge than I do about these supporting documents. To this day I believe that all this can be settled with scientific analysis of the tomb, the artifacts, and especially the DNA. It stands for nothing by itself, but if combined with DNA from The Cave of the Patriarchs or the Cave of Machpelah-Abraham and Sarah, and the DNA of Muhammad, who also claimed decent from Abraham. This would settle it all, once and for all. I have spent years writing letters and meeting with groups including National Geographic and Oxford University hoping to gain support and funding for such a huge undertaking. I have even offered to mortgage/sell my own home to finance the project....but it seems never enough. One day perhaps it will happen. Till then, everything is speculation. I stand by the historicity based primarily on the artifacts. No one I am aware of to this date has been able to disprove their background and age. Doug and History2007, I'm sorry I was so difficult last week. You two kept my mind off matters at hand, that I had to face eventually. I dont know what else I can say or do here. You and chihuhua make whatever decisions you are so inclined to make. It is what it is. Had I meant harm or deceit I would never have entered with my full name and same old ISP. The Roza Bal page has come a long way and I know you'll nurture the jewel in the lotus and help it grow into a really great page. Get those pictures and background info of artifacts from Roza Bal! These can be found on the Internet and in most books on the topic. Ken Lee at 'eleven shadows' website has some great pics taken when he visited Roza Bal. The Rod only gets photographed about once every 30 years. It needs some serious scientific research. I'll leave you to it. If I can help in any way, or provide any background information, let me know. I wish you the best. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

No one thinks that you intended harm or deceit, or any ill at all. We all believe you to be trying to help make sure Wikipedia is accurate, and your good will is appreciated. Unfortunately, we, as an encyclopedia, must adhere to what the recognized literature and experts have to say. Wikipedia is not a place to set matters straight. That must happen elsewhere, before we can consider it being here. While this may mean some articles are a bit behind the curve on the most cutting edge thinking, it prevents us from giving a soapbox to every fringe theory to come along. We wait for the dust to settle. We don't help it do so. I wish you all the best in your quest; I imagine it is very exciting and interesting. However, we cannot give it the weight which you would prefer to see. Killer Chihuahua 23:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Killer Chihuahua, thank you for kind words...I do understand. I think what "motivates" me to react at all is knowing so many Ahmaddiis..when anything about their religious beliefs appears "ridiculed" or demeaned in any way, they suffer. Their rate of persecution and deaths is appalling. It's OK to regard it as a 'fringe' theory, but it is not OK to give even more ammunition to people who would use it as justification for continued murder and suffering of these people...How something is worded can make all the difference- especially on "that" side of the world. Many thanks for all your help. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

I'm not sure we should be editing to protect the sensitivities of adherents of any religion, but I can assure you that Ahmadiyya is on my watchlist & I protect it from attacks by other Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_on_user_SuzanneOlsson regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)