Archives

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50 51,52,53

This page has archives. Topics inactive for10 days are automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III.

Olubadan0 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Hi Ed, we're having a problem with a new (since November) editor, who isedit-warring to retain his revisions to many articles by removal or replacement of longstanding sourced info with what is often utter nonsense not remotely supported by the sources they add or are already present. They appear to possibly be using a LLM to generate this crap. This editor appears to be pushing a revisionist history of African American history. See what they did toBlues withthis edit, toBanjo withthis edit or toHoodoo (spirituality) withthis one, just as examples They have not responded to notices on their talk page, such asthis orthis or on any other.Carlstak (talk)15:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user and invited them to respond here.EdJohnston (talk)16:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What sources don't agree with the information i'm adding? I'm directly quoting thequran over onhoodoo, which explicitly outlaws all forms of magic yet you continue to vandalize my edit while the unsourced jargon like "However, Black Hoodoo practitioners in the Chesapeake region have pushed back on the misinterpretation of that finding...." remains while having no source and no issue on your behalf. Over onBanjo i've added FIVE different sources related to the Banjos antecedents in West Africa while also adding the majority of the information related to the earliest known banjo instrument in the Americas, yet my entire edit gets vandalized because one source specifically related to a antecedent to the banjo "doesn't even nmention the "banjo"".Olubadan0 (talk)17:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olubadan0 madean edit to theBanjo article stating that the instrument was used in 'Foundational black American' traditional music rather than black American traditional music. Some background on that terminology can be seen inTariq Nasheed#Views and reception.EdJohnston (talk)19:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the revisions made by this editor and just a few minutes worth of fact-checking has shown, for example, atHoodoo (spirituality), to support their text: "Despite the fact that Islam prohibits all forms of magic including practices akin to "hoodoo", they citedthis which does not refer to hoodoo, only to "magic" or "black magic", not the same thing.

AtGoje, to support their version of the text, "The goje (the Hausa name for the instrument) is one of the many names for a variety of one or one-stringed fiddles from West Africa, predominantly played by various Nigerian ethnic groups such as the Yoruba in Sakara music as well as other West African groups that inhabit the Sahel", they citethis source, which says only "1. Nigerian spike fiddle. 2. one string fiddle from northern Ghana. A snakeskin covers a gourd bowl, horsehair is suspended on the bridge. It is played with a bow string."

As another example atGoje, asource the editor added to support their text: "The instrument is associated with pre-Islamic rituals, such as Bori spirit possession ceremonies which are still common among the Maguzawa Hausa", doesn't even mention the goje.

Just as a first example atBanjo, the editor added content unsupported by the already-present sourcehere, which doesn't even mention "African diaspora" or "West Africa".

AtGris-gris (talisman) they citeda blog, which says, "Allegedly, it was also used in the Islamic faith as protection against evil spirits called Djinn", to support "Many later Non-Muslims in animist-majority areas adopted these gris-gris containing Islamic Verses", as well as adding a cite of atravel site which says only "Both Christianity and Islam offer Africans an afterlife". Blogs and travel sites are not reliable sources, but these don't support the content at all, anyway. This editor is doing a lot damage to WP articles.Carlstak (talk)19:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodoo as a tradition doesn't even date back 500 years. How is a book that is atleast 1000 years older than any "Hoodoo" practicr going to mention the words Hoodoo? How does that even make sense? Why are you not editingIslam orQuran with sources that support your belief that Islam allows practices of magic?

AtGoje, you're reverting my edit back to "The instrument is tied to various pre-Islamic Sahelian rituals around jinn possession, such as theBori andHauka traditions of theMaguzawa Hausa,Zarma,Bororo Fulbe, andSonghay." Yet it has NO SOURCE.

OnBanjo the source that you take issue with quite literally says in the very first paragraph "In fact, SLAVES FROM AFRICA BROUGHT THE DESIGN IDEA FOR THE BANJO--an instrument now integral to the bluegrass sound." What region of Africa bring these designs to America from? Where did American enslaved people come from?

How is anything you're complaining about even logical?

You're ridiculousOlubadan0 (talk)16:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all of which, theWP policy page Verifiability says, perWP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."Carlstak (talk)19:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News recently referred to black Americans as "Foundational black Americans"; if this is a suitable term for a global broadcasting network to use, why isn't it a proper one for Wikipedia?[1]Olubadan0 (talk)16:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user Olubadan0 is obviously using AI tools to write their text and cite sources which is why we are seeing citations that do not support the text, and text that does not represent an accurate summary of the topic. Besides the details listed by Carlstak, the wording chosen by AI includes the very strange concept ofthe banjo being "tethered", whatever that means. The number of musicologists describing the banjo as tethered is zero. The citation supposedly supporting "tethered" does not mention that word at all.[2] I don't think Olubadan0 should be allowed to edit in mainspace until they understand the damage that they are introducing to the encyclopedia.Binksternet (talk)22:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every source I've included confirms the Banjo's origins in West Africa, with Suriname marking its first appearance in the Americas. Just because you dislike something does not make it false, nor does it give you the right to vandalise that information. Another example of coordinated vandalism of my edits isYoruba religion. If the Yoruba religion is not anethnic religion in the same sense thatJudaism orSamaritanism are, what is it?Olubadan0 (talk)16:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Olubadan0. It looks like you areWP:edit warring atYoruba religion over the past ten days, by constantly restoring the term 'ethnic religion'. PerWP:ONUS you are expected to get consensus for this type of change. If you continue to revert your preferred stuff into articles (without getting any support from others) you are risking admin action. Referring to others' edits as 'vandalism' suggests you don't understand how Wikipedia works.EdJohnston (talk)16:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits with no logical explanation apart from the fact that it's me providing the edits is vandalism . TheYoruba religion belongs to theYoruba people, why would a census be needed for something that is simply a fact? How is this even being debated?Olubadan0 (talk)17:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Olubadan0 48 hours for edit warring.EdJohnston (talk)17:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

*Original title was: A concern

• BasedBossx (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

I recently stumbled upon edits by user:BasedBossx. Said user has systematically went through and added unsourced information to the infoboxes of numerous(possibly one hundred) sieges, battles, and wars. In turn they have been warned by:

• StephenMacky1,misleading edit summaries,unconstructive editing
• A.Cython,unconstructive editing
• Kansas Bear,disruptive editing
• Jingiby,[3]

Even after these three(Jingiby's was after the discussion) sets of warning (1:23, 15 February 2026), user:BasedBossx continued to edit 19 battle/siege articles.

• A.Cython'spost shows unconstructive editing.
  • BasedBossx response, "Hello sorry, i can fix those issues, as you can see i have done more construction than destruction".
• I posted revert all edits done to battle articles.[4]
  • BasedBosss response, which was a false comment,I mainly added flags and included everything stated in the article though.
• I responded,That's so not true. You have added "Light" and "Heavy" to casualty sections, which are not supported by the article, to multiple articles.
• A.Cython added,You also changed the battle outcome siege of Constantinople. They linked it.
• A.Cython posted,Not to mentioned that you added additional information that was WP:OR by adding additional participants and used anachronistic flags.
  • BasedBossx response,I can fix those no problem, I just read the article and went off that. Is there a problem with the flags i put(3:51, 15 February 2026)

Then the discussion devolved into flag usage in infoboxes which is probably just a diversion to keep from repairing theWP:OR user:BasedBossx added to those articles.At which point I posted, "either they revert their unconstructive editing or I'd notify an admin."(4:02, 15 February 2026) To which BasedBossx states,"I am a historian, whats wrong with chatting with you, i will go revert them do not worry."(4:03, 15 February 2026)To which at 05:18, 15 February 2026, user:Jingibyposted a warning on user:BasedBossx's talk page.

As of this post on your talk page, user:BasedBossx had made zero reverts. Insteadrestoring their edit on battle of Ongal, which removes referenced information from the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk)15:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'veinvited BasedBossx to respond here.EdJohnston (talk)18:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I'm not sure user:BasedBossx will respond. I, unfortunately, have to work on a wedding(youngest son) and divorce(oldest son), so I will not be available for response(s) to user:BasedBossx. Hopefully, I should be back sometime in April after everything calms down. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk)21:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]