Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Behnaad and Sepaasee

Looks like he undid your edit :[1]. This guy has been around in Wikipedia for a while and removes stuff related to Afghanistan, Kurdistan and etc. These are the same users for sure (see timing and how he created his page). There was a user like this a while back where he would do a minor edit than follow it up with another edit with another username to blank out information: A sock check would prove that they are the same.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Any idea who the earlier editor was? I agree that we seem to have a problem here and there must be an earlier editor. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is 100% this: [2] (same behaviour..where he used to use two accounts to cover his track in removing words related to Kurds/Afghans and etc. Feel free to see my comment on Baba Tahir.. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Correcting moves

Doug, I just noticed a set of three articles that were incorrectly moved to singular titles:

I've placed my rationale for objecting to moving these from "magistrates" on all three talk pages as follows:

There is not a sole "executive magistrate", as the title now implies, that constitutes a single "job title". This is a set of magistracies that have several different job titles, and the article falls under the provision that plural titles are used for articles that cover Articles on groups or classes of specific things (see WP:PLURAL#Exceptions); specifically, Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items. See similar move discussion at Talk:Roman roads#Requested move.

Actually, this case is clearer than Roman roads. I want to boldly move these back, because the singular is actively misleading, implying that there's a singular "executive magistracy" instead of the various offices of the cursus honorum. But I'm unclear about whether there's a correct procedure for undoing a move that's more complicated than just moving it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. This was evidently done months ago and I just now managed to notice it, so no worries. I wasn't sure whether there was something to be done with the edit history, as I think in the past I've been rash in the way I went about moving things, involving questionable cutting and pasting. After all these years, I'm still often a procedural ignoramus. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yowzah

I corrected the punctuation without even looking at what article that was!  davidiad.: 18:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol! Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations.
Message added 19:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

request

dear dougweller,

could you please remove the edit summaries of several ips on the counterjihad-page [3]? a lot of personal attacks and other nonsense in those.-- altetendekrabbe  05:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is junk and says a lot about the IPs but doesn't qualify for rev/del. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Any chance you'd want to revdel some personal attacks here, here, and here? (Can you revdel the first revision of a page?) Anyway, thanks for your time! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of the beast

Hasn't Dieyu2012 (talk · contribs) gone over +3 reverts already at Number of the beast? His content is wp:original research if not wp:synth in regards to the new ref he supplied. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 05:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jolof Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Berber
Serer history (medieval era to present) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Berber

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Tel Dan stele

Hi,

Unfortunately I have found further problems in the text. One claim, which was originally reference no 5 stated ""one scholar writing noted in 2005" and than gave reference from the book published in 2004, namely Stavrakopoulou, Francesca (2004). "King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice" As this claim is non sense I removed it. Yet I become highly suspicious about another claim, namely reference number 11, as it also refer to the Francesca Stavrakopoulou and again to the page which is not available online. There are mounting evidence that this claim may have originated from the same editor and that its not based on any real source. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the reference number 11 is identical with the analyzed proposals for the meaning of the "House of David" written by Lawrence J. Mykytiuk. Its very unlikely that both Stavrakopoulou and Mykytiuk analyzed the same proposals for the same phrase in the same year (2004) independently Its more likely that the editor of reference no 11 used the text of Mykytiuk in opposite way of its meaning. Tritomex (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll look. I don't thin the article reflects the debate as well as it could in any case. Dougweller (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Today user PiCo who seems to be the editor of those two claim, removed my sourced material as well as the attribution of Stavrakopoulo for the claims which he attributed to her book. Contrary to his editions, my material as you have checked, is fully accessible, good sourced, university material. He just erased attribution of his claims to Stavrakopoulou adding that his claims are "universal" This is certainly problem and I will write it down on his talk page too, as he seems not just trying to avoid attribution of certain claims and present them as universal but he also is removing clear references and all other material, which are pointing in other directions. More so, the claim he ascribed to Stavrakopoulou, presenting it as universal, is not accessible and its existence is highly questionable. Thank you for your time.

Tritomex (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


Problems with PiCo editions

I have nothing against the edition of well sourced material disputing the reading of HD.

I never removed any sourced material-Therefor I have problem with the removal of other sourced material without any explanation by PiCo.

Also, its beyond reasonable doubt that reference no 11 originates from Mykytiuk (page 125-126 as all arguments presented here are written there) which were latter attributed to non accessible parts (page 86-87) of Stavrakopoulou book and by avoiding attribution presented as universal opinions and finally completed by removal of other material which did not fit this interpretation.

How was PiCo able to read page 86-87 of Stavrakopoulou book as it does not exist online? Third, I support Pico to rewrite his editions, but he can not remove my(and other) well sourced material without any explanation as he is doing every day.

Best Regards-Tritomex (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pico said it was online, please WP:AGF. I had no problem just now, it could be country-specific, ie you are in a different country that won't let you see it. " However, though the reference to a "king of Israel'* is fairly secure, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "House of David" is disputed, not least because it occurs without the expected word dividers, which are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription.76 As such, this fragmentary text cannot bear the weight of arguments heaped upon it concerning the historicity of the early monarchy. Moreover, even if the inscription is best interpreted as referring to the "House of David**, it testifies neither to the historicity of David nor to the co-existence of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the ninth century BCE. Rather, the designation "House of David" may refer simply to the ruling family of the small, fortified settlement of Jerusalem and its dependent villages whose (perhaps legendary) founder was believed to be named David or "Beloved". It does not logically lead to the assumption that David was an historical figure, nor that he and his son reigned over a Palestinian empire. Moreover, the mention of the "House of David" within an inscription which also mentions a king of Israel need not indicate the paralleling of their political stature, nor the fully-fledged statehood of the "House of David". Indeed, as Koppers himself suggests, the reconstructed claim in line 6 of the inscription that the military victor killed seventy kings complements the probability that there were many local and regional powers in Palestine.80 Most importantly, however, is the consideration that if this inscription does refer to a king of Israel and the House of David, it clearly distinguishes them as separate entities, underscoring further the evidence accumulated here." Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC


Huh? That's just a quotation from the book you couldn't find online. I really don't want to discuss this further on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Exuse me it was mistake. I understood it as proposal from PiCo. I will rewrite myself.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reverting my additions yesterday

Douglas I checked and all my additions of yesterday seem to be already reverted.My specialist interests are indeed poetry and art hence I thought my kindle ebook on these topics would of interest to a reader of Wiki (I certainly have not done this for 'self-promotion'),my ebooks are entirely written for educational purposes and priced accordingly the nearest Kindle allow for foc ! My hundreds of edits to Wiki over the past six years have been entirely motivated by this desire which I believe conforms to my understanding of Wiki's purposes as well ), in m y view Wiki are going to have a problem in the future as clearly ebooks are now a major publishing force and will grow even larger as indeed Wiki itself has replaced hard copy encyclopedias.But of course I accept your actions and will continue to support Wiki with edits in the future Kind Rgds Brian .................Also Douglas................................................. RE Footle poetic form it is a legitimate poetic form widely used in internet poetic circles and elsewhere and therefore worthy of being referenced here.Rgds Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay in replying. I'll respond in more detail on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no conflict of interest on my part Dougweller, notablity is clearly a subjective opinion, and I repeat Wiki will eventually have to come to considering ebooks if it is not to be left behind as a reference source.Rgds Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
We have our own criteria of notability that we all have to follow. And we don't rule out ebooks per se, but we do rule out self-published material. That's the way we work and I doubt that will change, as if it did than anyone could be used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Mmm

See you're busy with helpful useful edits as always. I thought it had already been deleted Obviously last time I saw that I forgot to do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. If you're bored, BrownHairedGirl and I could always use your help in the issue we're discussing on her talk page, or if the history of Senegal and Gambia (or rather the Serer interests you and you speak French... Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do speak French, not bored but have just spent 3 hours reverted 100 undiscussed moves counter a double RM, so could do with some light relief. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for unannounced interruption. But you mention interest in the history of Senegambia, Serer & speaking French. I fit that criteria. If I can be of assistance, let me know. Walrasiad (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Long story. I ran into articles edited by Tamsier (talk · contribs) when I realised that he was treating oral tradition as historical fact and making claims for a 10,000 year old Serer culture. He's a well meaning but extremely difficult editor (now blocked for 3 months after 3 earlier blocks for agressiveness and he says he's retired). He's also an ardent follower of the Serer religion and clearly a partisan in the long history of Serer-Wolof disputes. He's had some silly translation problems, all errors in favor of his pov. I'm finding material in his sources that he has either overlooked because they contradict what he's writing (from the source) or misrepresented. If you take a look at Talk:Lamane#Battle of Troubang you will see a major example of this, as he uses this alleged 1365 battle to 'prove' things in a number of articles. Problem is, this is clearly an oral tradition that is a memory of an 1865 battle. Which makes a mess of a number of articles. He also used a fringe source for some stuff, and when he was convinced it was a fringe source, replaced the source with Henry Gravrand, who is his main source for a lot of material. Unfortunately it wasn't in Gravrand, all he did was replace the source. Ethnicity in this area is a lot more mutable than Tamsier acknowledges, see my comments at Talk:Wolof language and Talk:Ethnic groups in Africa. I can use help because it's a big job and because I don't want to err in any other direction, I just want these articles to be NPOV - I've no stake in anything to do with these subjects except to make them NPOV and, I guess, to make sure that archaeology isn't misused. If either of you are still interested after reading the talk pages I mention, let me know. I also have some pdfs of sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I just had a run through the Edward Marriage/Patrick Foundation AfDs. Keep Christian O'Brien, Clear Delete 2 at AfD. The Serer looks more complicated, it's outside my know zone. But will have a nose. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of Tamsier and his expansive claims. We have crossed paths numerous times, e.g. on Senegal River, Niominka people, Saloum, Almoravids & Chronique du Walo, etc. Although I am probably not his favorite character, I did appreciate his effort to bring more material in and raising the profile of west African history. I also learned he is not always as wrong as he sometimes appears. Unfortunately, his expansive claims, biased POV and combative style were very jarring that I gave up long ago trying to contain it beyond my watchlist. I long dreaded the day when some brave fool would finally try to dig through the sprawling material and put it in some sort of order. But I suppose the day has arrived. Although time is not ample right now, I would be glad to help out where I can. To not duplicate efforts, maybe some division of labor is warranted? Perhaps a list of the troubled articles would be a useful way to organize and assign? I am more versed in history than religion or archaeology. Walrasiad (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that his articles are articles Wikipedia really needs (at least most of them, I haven't looked at all of them. His behaviour did create a 'walled garden' A list is a good idea. I think though that Lamane would be a good start, sorting out the oral history from the written history, sorting out how to present the fact that Gravrand's Battle of Troubang is actually the Battle of Kansala and thus can't be used to explain anything. And the whole complicate nature of the lamane system, which Tamsier both overstates and understates. This 'ancient lamane' stuff needs to be recast and some other sources used. I've got bought Dennis Galvan's book "The State must be our master of fire". One problem is that some authors seem to be basically just drawing stuff from other sources and not actually doing their own research, which complicates matters. I've got a pdf of the Saar article if you'd like that emailed to you. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. Sounds like a place to start. Although, as explained, I don't have that much time at the moment and will probably take a little while before I can plumb through this. Yes, I would appreciate a copy of the Saar article. Walrasiad (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sumerian farmer's almanac

I've added the link to Sumerian Farmer's Almanac in Sumer in the section about agriculture in totally right context, and you reverted it and even warned me for "destructive editing". Were you drunk? — wolfRAMM  18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Cruise

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Cruise. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Joan Buck

Aichikawa and Bbb23 are deleting like 100 times anything to do with critics of Buck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.50.184.173 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

King Ahaz

Take a look on that article. It seems to me that something yours from the talk page went in to the article by mistake.Tritomex (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Scindia31

You seem not to have actually blocked Scindia31, although you did post the notice. Thanks for reverting some of the stuff. The CU has now confirmed my suspicions re: the farm but, of course, I probably should not clean up any remaining contributions due to 3RR etc. It can wait a day or two, by which time I suspect that they'll be back unless the articles are semi'd. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That was meant to be a 3RR warning. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah. No worries - all is well. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Semi'd a few pages, not all. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your revert on Homo Habilis

Main reason I put the IP's edit in was because it was in good-faith and a valid edit. Shouldn't be undone by a bot as possible vandalism. Churn and change (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Saffarids

Hi, I know you don't necessarily want to get involved, but can you just read the arguments in the talkpage? With google books/scholars, it is fairly easy to see what is a neutral POV. Another neutral 3rd person is needed to comment on the talkpage based on the discussions. Thank you--96.255.251.165 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks again for all your good work.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nefertiti

Could you restore the move-protection ([move=sysop] (indefinite)) of the page Nefertiti? I think you removed it by mistake. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, possibly a result of using Twinkle. Thanks for letting me know. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article

Seems it might be genuine, at least at first sight. http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/objectdetails.aspx?oid=213397&term=tamil+bell PiCo (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Zhang Xianzhong

I have no idea what the problem it is you have with the section. The poem itself is very well-known, there is even a page for it in Chinese wiki - 七殺碑. If you are talking about cutting off of feet, the reference is actually there in the bottom in the references section, but it is in Chinese - Shu Bi (this is probably the original source of most of the information in the page). Hzh (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at all of that when I removed it the first time. The existence of an article elsewhere doesn't mean it should be included there, especially when I read things such as "recently, netizens circulated the full text of the so-called "Qisha monument," and see external links such as [4]. As I said, the burden is on anyone restoring this section. I tried my best to source it, perhaps you can do better. What is the source in wiki-source? Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Shu Bi is an account of Zhang Xianzhong life and his slaughter. It was probably written in the 18th century a long time after the event, so questions may be raised whether the account is entirely accurate, although I'm not sure if there is any account that is contemporaneous to the event elsewhere. I only skimped through it because I don't want to read it (it is extraordinarily lurid and depressing to read), so I only chose the closest quote I can see in the quickest way possible.
At the moment I'm still not sure why you deleted the section. Are you questioning that the poem doesn't exist? That would be really odd because that poem is so strongly associated with Zhang Xianzhong that it would be wrong not to mention it, even if it is to refute it. There are those who say it was invented by the Qing to justify their conquest, but that is not a reason to delete it, rather it should be mentioned as something that's possibly unreliable. Hzh (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I am getting quite appalled. Now you are questioning if a well-known text written in the Qing Dynasty is real? Hzh (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that if it's well known you should be able to easily source it with sources that meet WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you saying. That is the source, you are saying old historical texts cannot be used in wiki? Where did this rule comes from? You can delete a hell lot of pages on Chinese history (I would say the vast majority of them) because their only source are ancient historical texts like Zizhi Tongjian. Please state categorically that is what you mean, old historical texts cannot be used? I am truly stunned. Hzh (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
How can I make it clearer? Any text, old or new, has to be sourced, and Wikisource isn't a reliable source by our criteria. Please don't discuss this here anymore, discuss it at RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Because you did not bother to discuss it there, and you refuse to answer my questions properly why you chose to delete the section, instead seeking to get other people who don't have any clue as to whether the source and poem are legitimate to answer them. Let me try again, what is the reason you deleted the section? Do you question the fact that the poem is highly associated with him? If not, then what reason can there possibly be to delete it? Do you think the Shu Bi that's written in wikisource has been made up? Hzh (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I brought it up there, so clearly I discussed it. I don't have to reply instantly. I'm not discussing it here. Dougweller (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bafour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imraguen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding categories regarding the sexual orientation of a living person

Response to this post on my talk page

Sorry, but it is not covered by BLPCAT. These are not articles of Living People and the very next paragraph says the policy does not apply to dead people. All of the people in question are dead. The difference is that the editor in question has declared a very obvious conflict of interest and doesn't like that people with whom his family have a historical connection are being described as "gay" or "bisexual". The editor in question has a long history of Catholicism-related edits (like I do) so we can only guess as to his motives.
My attempts at a good faith solution were rejected and my comments were deleted without comment from his talk page. His tendentious editing will, I imagine, continue to be reverted.
Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, there could be a problem there. However, if you look at the edit history of Franz, Duke of Bavaria, which is what brought this to my attention, that's a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No worries mate - have responded at Pgarret's talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC).
Responding to your comment on my talk page, it might seem like I was the one who added that category [5], but my actual edit is to add the Bavarian succession in See Also [6]. Reigen (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, that was obviously my error. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi mate, any chance you could have another look at Pgarret's talk page and his edits. Though he is now finally raising these issues on the talk pages of each article, he is doing so by effectively spamming the same block argument (angrily citing BLP for biographies of long-dead people) onto various talk pages. Every time I raise the matter on his talk page I get a very hostile response. I have tried to respond with civility each time (feel free to tell me if you think otherwise) and have even offered to edit articles where he has a COI but also some concern about content. Maybe there's a language barrier, maybe I'm missing something but if it can't be resolved (though I'm loathe to do so) I can only see that the next step is WP:ANI to ask for a topic-ban. Would appreciate your thoughts / action. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

Citation style

Thanks, I already applied your suggestion in my new article about Lachish relief, although not for last two source, due to my time shortage. However I will correct it today. (Hopefully)!

Thanks again and best regardsTritomex (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

I'm sure you have this on your watchlist, but a recent editor has injected a lot of new data, and his talk page comments there make it look like he has a well defined POV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Seven Seals

My apologies. I did not intend to be disruptive. I guess I have to learn about Wikipedia etiquette and yes, I will register. Thank you for the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.164.10 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Hello Dougweller -- Pleased to meet you. The link was interesting. With respect to the article Self-deportation, it seems like you have been able to spot some kind of "new thought", "new concept", or "original research", so maybe you would be so kind as to point out what you are thinking as a professional courtesy? If there is anything like that then I definitely want to be the first know. I'm not seeing a single concept in the article that is new or original in any way, so I need help with this. You mentioned original research is involved with the concept that the Real ID Act deprives drivers licenses to immigrants? That is explicitly stated in the text of the act itself shown in the references. No research is needed to click on the reference and read that material, and the material is pretty easy to read because I chose something that is much simpler than the Library of Congress material. I remember including a link to the UC Berkeley web site that explains that immigrants can't get drivers licenses. It's a pretty old law so it isn't "breaking news" or "original research". You also mentioned that original research is involved with the concept that police have been illegally confiscating vehicles from immigrants that can't get drivers licenses and actioning their property? That was acknowledged by the state of California when the practice was outlawed after the final ruling by the 9th circuit court and after PBS ran a story about how the state made $40 million from property illegally seized from immigrants in 2009. That is supported by more than one reference. I had no trouble reading any of the references. I intentionally picked references that were simple. There is no question whatsoever that the material is 100% factual. I don't think most people would be utterly shocked to learn that immigrants would have to "self deport" after the police illegally seize their cars, charge them with a crime that makes them subject to forcible deportation, in addition to depriving them of an income by auctioning the vehicle they use to get to work. That doesn't count as research. It is common knowledge that the undocumented immigrant population has declined by 1.7 million. That's not research. I believe the article is high school reading level, which seems appropriate. It's not like a couple of paragraphs of blatantly obvious material with old worn out references would counts as a PhD thesis. I hope this finds everyone well. Best regards.Nanoatzin (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If you were writing an essay, all of that would be appropriate. But not here. In general, sources must discuss the subject of the article. Thus the Real ID act doesn't discuss self-deportation, nor do your other sources. WP:SYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." And that's what you have done, used sources that are fine to reach a conclusion that these amount to self-deportation. I think you read WP:NORN where this was discussed. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dougweller. You seem like a nice person. I'm not sure why this is so hard. The subject matter of the article might be misleading with respect to the definition of the title of the article according to US law, which states: ... immigrant ... having departed voluntarily while under an order of removal (a “self-deport”) .... A "self deporter" is legally defined as someone that left the country after having been charged with a deportable offense that resulted in a deportation order (i.e.: driving without a license). Anyone that goes across the border any other way is not applicable to the article. I am absolutely certain you are not referring to tourists and immigrant workers that don't have a deportation order as "self deporters" just because they cross a border. The article would therefore fall into urban legend territory involving racism if true (would fail to meet the "encyclopedic content" requirement). I read WP:NORN. I also read this from UC Berkeley --> "The 9/11 Commission Report ... contained a recommendation ... including driver's licenses. In the post 9/11 era ... The Real ID Act (HR418) ... sought to bar all states from issuing driver's licenses to people who cannot prove they are in the U.S. legally ... One of the measures ... driver's licenses, forbidding states from issuing them to illegal immigrants ... passed the House of Representatives on May 5, 2005.": UC Berkley, Driver's Licenses For Undocumented Aliens <-- The "illegal immigration" material from Berkeley was censored from Illegal Immigration to the United States because it was called "original research" when used in that article, and you've just told me that immigration research from Berkley isn't applicable to Self deportation because it is also "original research" when used in that article. The state of California openly admitted it confiscated $40 million of property from immigrants because of that law. Here is a source that says California admitted that. References say the same thing. The ACLU says: "... the REAL ID Act of 2005, also includes numerous anti-immigrant provisions. For example, it would allow officials to require people seeking asylum to get supporting evidence from the very governments they are fleeing. It also requires DMV employees to identify illegal immigrants and deny them driver's licenses ... even though state officials lack training in federal immigration law." These say the same exact thing as the article (no dots are being connected). That being said --> I would like to satisfy your requirements. What references would you recommend that I censor? How would you recommend that I recognize material from references that needs to be censored? If the issue does not involve censorship, then would you mind letting me know what you think might be missing? Could you be a little bit more specific this time? Thank you for your time. I hope this finds everyone well. Best regards.Nanoatzin (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Jtmorgan's talk page.
Message added 01:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 06:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

Is the comment on my talkpage borderline wp:Sock puppetry by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves with his reference to "Why not answer an admin here "? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 17:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Prehistoric mathematics

The influence of Ishango bone has been proposed by a some scholars including Marshack. I agree that establishing a connection between the Ishango bone and Egypt is left only for speculation. It is also a very debated topic, which is why i put that that it is disputed by other scholars.I am simply noting the theories that people are stating regarding the bone, the bone's math itself is disputable. I consider the bone and the claims as theories not widely established facts, but nonetheless should be included in the discussion of its origins, meaning, and proposed influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.163.124 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amar Godomat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tagant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Its found that you have been reverting my edits in various articles which are related to Ahmadiyya sayin 'Wikipedia can't state that this is a separate religion as they consider themselves Islamic'. I know this topic is on discussion. But let me put some light to it. May be this has been pointed by many already, but I take this opportunity to notify it again. If what you said is taken as the criterion, explain the given situations:

  • Few practicing Jews considers themselves as Christians believes in Jesus as a prophet while denying 'Jesus' as son of God. Who are they according to Wikipedia or you for that matter?
  • A serial killer considers himself as a cop. While killing hundreds of people he even wears a cop uniform. Who is this guy for Wikipedia if he finds a place in?--Truebrother (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Those aren't comparable, and in any case we have enough reliable sources - by our criteria although probably not by yours -- saying Ahmadiyya is Islamic. If you can find the same for your examples I'd be surprised. We don't separate out Latter Day Saints from Christianity, although personally I don't think Mormons are Christians (note I'm not a Christian so I have no stake in that debate). Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As you mentioned Mormons, in Wikipedia they are considered as followers of another religion called Mormonism even when they self-identify as Christians. Also in Jesus article ( and in many other articles) there is no sections as 'Mainstream Christianity' and 'Jehovah's Witnesses view' but there is Mainstream Islam and Ahmadiyya view. Why this double standard on Islam is allowed and prevailed in Wikipedia? Isn't this a discrimination?--Truebrother (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Mormonism is in the category "Christian new religious movements". Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So whats your take on adding sections as 'Mainstream View' and 'Jehovah's Witnesses view' under 'Christian Views' in Jesus article?.--Truebrother (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't care. I suspect some people might be concerned as to how you defined 'mainstream Christian'. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, some people (myself included) would say that the Christadelphians addition by Truebrother was bordering on WP:POINT given the issues above, and that they have all of 50,000 members. So a tiny groups is running against WP:Due. This should really be discussed on the Jesus talk page, but I happened to see this. If that door is opened, there will be 50 subsections there for 50 different Christian groups, and a multi-party nightmare when the various groups debate it. I think True brother should self-revert. History2007 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to your opinion, whether there is 50 different christian groups or not, its a fact that there are different views on Jesus inside Christianity itself. So in an article about Jesus in Wikipedia, trying to give a notion that Christianity has a common view about Jesus is not at all fair. Especially when relatively, a common view possessing religion like Islam on the topic is shown by sections. We cannot try to hide a fact fearing that a multi-party nightmare could arise. What if few more groups like Ahmadiyya comes up in future proclaiming themselves as Muslims but having different views on Jesus, will us be forced to remove Ahmadiyya view from the article fearing the same nightmare? Actually my edit was not against but for WP:Due.--Truebrother (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Due requires proportional real estate based on the weight of the item. The Christadelphians are much smaller than Calvinists, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, etc. and are getting more real estate. That is against Due. History2007 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct, but this discussion should be at Talk:Jesus so others can see it. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should be there. I will copy i there.... History2007 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 14:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you try sending me that source email now please

Re: Alhazen. Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Memetics as pseudoscience

I removed one reference related to Intelligent Design which had nothing to do with memetics. There is now only one reference, James W. Polichak, "Memes as Pseudoscience", in Michael Shermer, Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. P. 664f.

Not mentioned is that in the same book is Susan Blackmore's "Memes as Good Science."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gr4snwg7iaEC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=%22The+Skeptic+Encyclopedia+of+Pseudoscience%22+%22Memes+as+Good+Science.%22&source=bl&ots=bDwCaQIBYk&sig=deLzsrHu3ll0c_U080L3oICzLQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EqFYUK3vJ-rWiwK2wYGgBA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Skeptic%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Pseudoscience%22%20%22Memes%20as%20Good%20Science.%22&f=false

Given that Polichak is the only one cited, I think this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue#Due_and_undue_weight

Though if you can find a substantial number of people to offset the likes of EO Willson, Dawkins, Hofstadter and Dennet, I will agree that memetics is properly classed as pseudoscience. Keith Henson (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? The article is specifically about topics characterized as pseudoscience. And seriously, you can't find any other sources? See [7]. Hallpike's book is self-published, but see [8] for instance. And [9]. But this belongs on the article's talk page, not here, so I'm copying my post there. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Little Bighorn

Talk page full of warnings and does not stop disruption. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Whois identified it as a school, so I've templated it and given a short block. Doesn't edit very often though. You can add templates yourself you know, it's not an Admin job. Twinkle helps. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Trouble at David article

Hi. When you have a minute, can you please fix the lede at David? Also, Nahk7 may be a newbie who needs direction. (Then again, he may not be.) Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Troubling editor Gigette

Dougweller - I see you have started a discussion about user Gigette's multiple unsupported redirects. There's more to this. She is the author of a book about Aztec mythology. She is systematically rewriting all articles about Aztec Mythology to reflect only the view expressed in her book. This violates the principle of not publishing one's original research. She refuses to discuss changes on the talk pages of articles and threatens to have anyone that reverts her edits blocked. She is engaging in multiple edit wars. She is removing the reliable sources for the articles and replacing them with references to her own book and what ever one of the very limited references in its bibliography. Her book is not in English and neither are the other references. Her book is not a reliable source. If she is allowed to continue, all of the articles about Aztec mythology will be what is says in her book and her SPANISH language book will be the only source. Is this what Wikipedia is all about? One severely awful nazi tyrant taking over a whole area of Wikipedia and not allowing others to contribute? Please help. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Please see ·ʍaunus's post on the Lords of the Night Centeotl God or Godess? section. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Wally Wallington

How would it be original research, we know that in Britain they didn't have water hoses back then for a fact. And that he used modern tools. He hasn't show how you can do it with tools available to ancient Britain, so that could be considered original research as well. Why is it you don't delete that, but you DO delete what I wrote, so you edit based on your biases. The snare (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And, again some more if it is original research, please don't be a hypocrite, and only edit what you don't like The snare (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox question.

Blacas Cameo: {{Infobox artwork}} or {{Infobox artifact}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Artwork I'd say, as that seems to be its primary interest. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

R Hawkins

Apologies if the edit summary seemed innapropiate - my rational was that the converage of the discredited university was too detailed for the article (it has its own article)- thus I reduced it, removing information about the university but not about the person. I don't think any change was made to the overall information imparted. Not sure if the author Carrol actually needs to be namechecked - we are taking his opinion as valid.Oranjblud (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

TourEgypt

Hi Doug,

I noticed recently that Google or Trend believed that touregypt.net was full of Malware, and had the dangerous X and highlighted in red, so I changed the link but left everything else as it was. My articles were already mentioned, but with the touregypt.net URL instead. If this has been cleared up, then that is good, but I didn't want links to my articles (of which TourEgypt is a duplicate) connected to malware. Feel free to do whatever you need, though do double check that touregypt.net has been given a clean bill of health! I messages them on Facebook as soon as I noticed, but have received no response as of yet.

PS - Would my Uni essays, the newer pages on my site in PDF format, be appropriate should anyone wish to link to them? Or would they only be applicable after I finish Honours?

Thanks!

Kunoichi.au (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't the malware thing, it was just that we, or rather those of us interested in Egyptology articles, think that these articles should have sources from well-known professional Eygptologists wherever possible (and that material that can't be sourced that way probably isn't important enough to be in an article). And sorry, your Uni essays still won't meet our criteria. I did find TourEgypt articles very useful when I visited Luxor 2 years ago (great time, went with a friend who is doing research at Abydos). Maybe you could find a source for the Seshat material, even your article didn't state that specifically so I deleted it after not finding a source. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh, Wikipedia has changed since it first started, and it is kind of sad to see the end of the hobbiest and student, which is where Wikipedia first started. It is now tougher than my university lecturers at who can be referenced, yet the academics won't allow students to use Wikepedia! Anyway, there are some scholarly articles on Seshat out there, but those in Egyptology journals seem to be pre-40s, or by people who may not be well-known professionals. However, if old material is okay, try 'Seshat and the Pharaoh' by G. A. Wainwright, in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, ISSN 0307-5133, 02/1941, Volume 26, pp. 30 - 40. Kunoichi.au (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Blacklisting

I'd be intrigued to hear why (a) blacklisting is being used for a non-spam matter and (b) why (asserted) copyvio links are a problem on archived talk pages requiring their deletion. GDallimore (Talk) 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That was Moonriddengirl's suggestion, do you have a better one? I mis-remembered about the user talk pages. I did tell another Admin I was going to remove it from their talk page and got no response. I don't think I can restore copyvio links though. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Blacklisting has not traditionally been limited to spam; it has also been used to deal with WP:LINKVIO. I would hazard a guess that most if not all of the 8 sites blocked that include "lyric" were blacklisted for that reason. I don't know which site we're talking about, but the policy at WP:LINKVIO does not discriminate by namespace. It's against policy to link to content that we know or have strong reason to suspect is in violation of copyright anywhere. Is their removal causing some kind of problem? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Lilith

Thanks for reminding me of that, and also picking up the Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing, Valarie H. Ziegler - 1999 Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis Page 174 ref.
The basic problem with that article is the giant torso of Hurwitz-sourced material trying to reverse engineer Babylonian beliefs from Jewish medieval documents. I don't think there's any question that all kinds of things in 2T Judaism/later have a hefty serving of Babylonian belief. The DSS, OTP and NT are already plentiful evidence of that, but attempting to tie medieval rabbinical worries about nocturnal emissions with Gilgamesh - like the worst forms of 1890s German OR gone wild. The whole internal section of the Lilith article needs scything. The Lamashtu article isn't in much better shape. Nor is Religion in Mesopotamia. I concluded the last time I looked that Lilu (mythology) was the appropriate page for an article on generic Akkadian demons - and a paragraph there for Zimmern's ardat lilitu reference. Then the Hurwitz gumpf could be block-pasted on the Talk:Lilu (mythology) for anyone who wanted it. But Hurwitz is 3rd-4th hand removed from any scholar who could sit down with a chunk of cuneiform tablet and a fine cleaning brush. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I started cleaning it up, easiest to do it. I have 64 min (according to the back of CD for Gazzaniga's Don Giovanni) so let's see what can be done... Have fun with the Serer stuff, seemed difficult. Easier with dead Akkadians! In ictu oculi (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Abc

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks/Abc. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Note on Spiffy's page

SpacemanSpiff has asked me to mention User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Dodgy Indic source to you. In the circumstances, you might also want to review User talk:Utcursch#Mughal Lohar. I am watching both pages and this one ... so we can start over if needs be. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Something good

Yo Doug! Usually, I write to you when I notice some childish pseudo-historic cranks, but fortunately not this time. I just want to inform you that I've been to Iran this summer and I took huge collection of photos from ancient sites. Not Persepolis and popular sites (we have tons of photos at commons), but from some less known archaeological sites like Tappeh Mill, Rey, Dayer Gachin, etc. It's hard to find fine photos of them even at internet or literature. I upload some of them at commons and if you want to use them you can find it at mine upload list. Greetings, Mr. O. --109.165.182.222 (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's brilliant, and lucky you! I've just been to Jerash and Petra, but we have all the photos we need for those. I don't have time now but will take a look at them later. Dougweller (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Took a quick peek, all I can say is wow! Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[ talk page stalker ] Actually there is a Petra image that I could use: did you make it up to the church and get a shot of Room I (in the extreme northeast corner)? From the plates in The Petra Church it didn't look like the most exciting room, but it's where the Petra papyri were discovered in 1993, and I'd love to have an image of it at that article when I expand. Thanks, davidiad.:τ 18:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Another TPS: Uy, it sounds terrible when someone says something was discovered in 1993! The verb "to discover" was not used for the period ending in late XIXth Century? I have been to those places before the said year... Now it sounds to me like I lived most of my life "BCE" (Before Contemporary Era?) --E4024 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
We'll say "excavated", then, to prevent any era-tic crises.  davidiad.:τ 16:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

You are a good editor on the Wikipedia. I just wanted to ask why it is that you prefer to use BCE instead of BC, personally. Most calendrical items are named for mythological deities in various religions, ranging from Norse mythology to Roman mythology to Christianity. If you have no interest in renaming Thursday to Common Day 4, why do you support renaming Before Christ to Before Common Era? 24.222.1.2 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's comparing apples and oranges. A number of Christian scholars use BCE, as do archaeologists and historians. Virtually no one uses alternative names for months or days. Nor do any major religions worship Odin or Mars. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

Just a note that in the cleanup of Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse though was started about mergers, I have come across some copyvio, and have done in this article [10]. I have checked some of the content, but removed others as being from a banned sockpuppet and hard to verify if there is issues or not (such as an unattributed merge), this is part of what Ghost Ghouls is restoring [11], I believe there is probably more copyvio in it, but it would be a lot of work to verify, and would be undue anyway.

I'm going to wait the SPI out though, as it's apparent it's a WP:DUCK though he feigns being new. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

You changed his to some, untold, and refuted. I would kindly request you to undo your edit :) Because, Naik is almost universally praised for his dawah work, some implies that others have a problem with his dawah, which I am yet to hear a case of, and trust me I know the bloke. An untold number? Indeed this is not hyperbole as nothing is being exaggerated. Seriously, Naik gives lectures in India in front of 200 000+ people and every time, you get many accepting Islam because of his work (and my many I mean MANY). It is believed he perhaps is the most successful 'converter' to Islam in the world. Seriously look up his videos, there are dozens accepting all the time, no-one keeps track of it. That's why untold is the correct adjective. Now we come to refuted. He has been 'refuted'. It's like saying your a Jewish speaker and you argue there is more than one god. This will be easily refuted because it is part of the establishment. You are attacking one of the core principles and this is what he does. He is attacking taqlid, a core principle, and his arguments been refuted many, many times, as seen through references - not just challenged - REFUTED. This is why, as aforementioned, I kindly request you to undo your undoing. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServantofAllah93 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't do that, because I don't have reliable sources - see WP:RS for the changes you are asking for. And from what you say, you do mean refuted as in proven, and again that would need a source and attribution to meet WP:NPOV. You might want to read WP:NOR as well. New editors often don't understand the way we work - I didn't when I started.
I'm also looking at another issue, which is links to Scribd.com. In general, many such links are to copyrighted works for which they have no permission, and our policy forbids such links. In particular, when we are dealing with translations it's the date of the translation, not the date of the original, which determines copyright. I'm checking but I'm pretty sure The Difference of the Imams is copyright still so the link will have to be removed and replaced with a proper citation (including page number). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't do that because you don't have reliable sources. Well you do realise it's a reciprocal, fallacious argument: there are not reliable sources to prove your edit. I have provided sources for mine, you may say they are not reliable, but they are sources nevertheless; try finding sources stating the changes you have made, that's the challenge I put forth. The Difference of the Imams is promoted online by many organisations, and I am to the opposite opinion of you; it is now published online. So I am unsure why you say it is under copyright, happy to know if you can prove othgerwise however. Please, did you read what I said with refuted? He is making a claim against a fundamental pillar of the religion, therefore the claim CAN BE REFUTED. Let me try another analogy: a Christian speaker makes a claim that Jesus had a wife - this claim is not challenged it is REFUTED. I hope you can undertand this. Another example: a Muslim speaker says you don't have to pray five times a day - this calim is REFUTED, not just challenged. When you have the whole Islamic tradition against you, then the claim is refuted, not challenged. I understand your efforts to make the language more objective, but when it can be proven otherwise, it is incorrect to do so. Also, I have been around for a while now, this is just a new account I have made in the last few days, as there was an issue with my email and logging on previous accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServantofAllah93 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Explaining your account is much appreciated. As for copyright, it isn't up to me to prove it's within copyright, it's up to anyone who wants to link to a web-held copy (outside of Google books) to show it is copyright free. That's the way we work. I think this discussion really belongs on Naik's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am now kindly requesting you remove the accusation against me made in edit wars. The first reference was from elsewhere in the article, unrelated to the supposed edit wars. So here we are down from four to three. Yes you did point out and warn concerning the three reversion rule, however I only did two :) I will happily admit the first two (even though I still believe my wording was better but that is irrelevant), however the third one was NOT a reversion. I edited the piece, so it was more neutral and palatable to all. I didn't even put what I wanted (as stated earlier), but I ceded to the "demands" of others. So from three we're down to two, and thus I have not exceeded the three reversion rule :) Thanks, obviously the sooner the accusation is removed the better. All the best to you :)ServantofAllah93 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

McNeil

Well there you go... how unusual. Wonder what prompted the change of focus? Either way, thanks for that! Much appreciated. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Gun Powder Ma has been reported to ANI for the edit war on Muslim Mafia (book). It seems you were sort-of involved in that, so perhaps you wish to comment. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd edits

Not sure what this editor is about, but their edits are pretty clear vandalism: [12][13][14][15]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. Don't forget WP:AIV which can be faster as I might not be around! Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Hi, hope all is well. You kept inserting "some" into Zakir Naik paragraph, saying "'some' is needed also" - I kindly request as to why this is done...why is "some" needed? Also, even if some was needed for a valid reason, it is not true, as his 'dawah' work is basically universally praised, however there are a number who take issue with certain non-dawah ideas he gives to Muslims. I believe leaving the phrase as it was "lauded by his Muslim contemporaries" is best; not by "some" of them. Looking forward to your reply :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServantofAllah93 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP - any statement like this needs reliable sources. We can say 'some' because that's obvious, no one would say none. But to suggest all needs reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the reply. How about "most"? ServantofAllah93 (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be persistent, I think this is the last one. I put "while being lauded by his Muslim contemporaries", whereas "some of" was then inserted into this. Is not the original phrase better as it does not quanitify, specify how many Muslims? When it says some, some implying less than 50%, this gives the idea that most Muslims have a problem with his evangelical work for non-Muslims, when this is not th case. I just think (1) Leaving the original is better as it doesn't specify an amount, and by saying "some", this is specifying an amount, when it is an incorrect amount (2) If there is an insistence on inserting an adjective, "most" at the very least would be better because "some" is implying wide-spread disastifaction with his Muslim to non-Muslim work; but by leaving any quantifying adjective out altogether is best as the language is neutral, in my opinion ie some should not be the default position here. It's like saying, "Usain Bolt's contemporaries consider him the greatest sprinter alive, but some take issue with his..." and then this is changed to, "some of his contemporaries think..." this then implies most think he's not the best alive, and that's not correct. ServantofAllah93 (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Crop circle

Hi,

I just put some additions to the Crop Circles page. I included a quote from Marcus Allen in the Man-made section. I don't quite know how to add a citation for the quote in the footnotes. I have also added a few balancing statements regarding the overwhelming "scientific/skeptic" bias in this section. Very few alternative views are stated in this article, and they are always within the context of skeptical overview. Skeptics are given the right to make sweeping generalizations without having to prove the validity of their beliefs. I would like to contribute a little more of a balanced presentation. How do I do this before you erase everything I contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etnada (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to add material, make sure it doesn't look as though it is from the source already there. Make sure your language is neutral, see WP:NPOV and WP:Words to avoid. Make sure your sources meet WP:RS and read WP:FRINGE as well. Above the edit window you will see a dropdown box called Templates, use that for citations. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Talk:Hidden character stone.
Message added 04:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheChampionMan1234 04:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

magicJack

Thanks, Doug, for following up on the magicJack article and deleting that lawsuit. Regarding the other lawsuit, the article mentions netTalk's recent suit against magicJack but not magicJack's suit against netTalk filed last April that is ongoing. I guess I'll add that, for balance. I keep an eye on this article because it gets occasional driveby edits from disgruntled users of magicJack, which is a very popular device. TimidGuy (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

About Dhul-Qarnayn Article

You did this before and you have done it again. Is there any violation or vandalism by adding one more possible figure? There is also a reference to support this reality. Before you also said that Gog and Magog look like Mongol people. How do you know that? Where is your reference or source?

Oghuz Qagan and/or Bilge Qagan was one of the possible identity for Dhul-Qarnayn. What's more this figure is the most probable one because the section of the Quran related to Dhul-Qarnayn and Orkhon Inscriptions are exactly same.

Pelase do not delete any section of this article before discussing it with people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.77.4 (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We simply do not accept self-published sources, see WP:SPS. Or sources which aren't significant enough to have been discussed by other reliable sources per WP:RS. I've never said Gog and Magog look like Mongols. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not accepted as a self-published book. That book is not that primitive one. The information in this book based on real and physical evidences.
  • You may read the Quran's section and the Orkhon Inscriptions. Also you may read that ASA book.
  • I think you have so much prejudice about people who are/were of Central Asian origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.201.130 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Didn't you said that Gog and Magog looks like Mongols in he Talk section of the article or am I mistaken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.201.130 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Taken to WP:RSN#Asâ, Oktan Keles,, I.stanbul - and no, never said anything about Mongols. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What is your problem with the article? Why is it so much important for you to exclude Oghuz Qagan possibility from this article? You spend so much time on this article, do you have a regular job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.127.143 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I spend very little time on this article. I'm retired, I'm an Administrator here, I'm concerned about making sure our policies on reliable sources, etc are followed. You seem to be unwilling to show any evidence that he is a reliable source, you didn't even post a reply at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)



  • I look at the references at the bottom of the article. I think you must also make sure that all references linked to this article be reliable. Otherwise you do aprroach this article in a racist manner.
Let's look at the references linked from/via this article:
1- First reference is stars21.com. It seems you're so much convinced that this is a pure scientific and reliable source.
2- Hibamagazine. I even cannot see any author of the article which is linked from our article. Why do you think this is a reliable source?
3- Encyclopedia of Islam. The chief editor is Martijn Theodoor Houtsma, a Dutch "orientalist". Is it a reliable source? I don't say it isn't but there is a huge question mark at this point.
4- Robert Spencer, some kind of "fantastic" critic of Islam probably due to his personal life and memories. I ask you why Robert Spencer is a reliable source of information but Oktan Keleş is not.
5- Rudi Paret. One more orientalist. Based on the Quran transcription of this guy, it is noted that Dhul-Qarnayn was to be Alexander. This is an absurd situation.
  • What's more so many non-Islamic sources are used to create this article which is about a pure Islamic figure. This is also very absurd.
  • In fact there are three possible figures:
The most probable one was Bilge Qagan and/or Oghuz Qagan. Because there is an exact match between the section of Al-Kahf in Quran and the Orkhon Inscriptions. There is also a study on this probability with not only that exact match but also physical evidences. But it is so strange that non-muslim Robert Spencer with no evidence but with his personal life and memories is more reliable than Oktan Keleş with an obvious exact match between the texts mentioned two sentence ago.
Other possibilities were Cyrus and Alexander. Moreover in Islamic terminology it is discussed that whether the historical figure Alexander the Great is the Junior or not. There is a huge discussion on this figure because he was pagan. I'm sure you even do not know this.
It is very important to mention all those three possible figures in the article.
When I have a free time I will re-edit this article one more time including all those three possible figures. Please leave spending so much time on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.127.143 (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hiba magazine is clearly not a reliable source, and I've removed it. Stars.21 is just a dictionary, and I've replaced these two with two academic sources. I'm happy to get rid of Spencer, but Paret and the Encyclopedia of Islam clearing meet our criteria at [[WP:RS] as academic sources.
If you are suggesting that only Islamic sources should be used, I don't think you will get agreement for that, see WP:NPOV. All our sources should meet WP:RS and for the most part or perhaps all for this article they should be academic sources. Oktan Keleş doesn't qualify as I've said at WP:RSN.
You need to be careful about how the article is written, as Wikipedia articles should not be used to argue a particular point, they should just reflect what reliable sources have to say - but - this should be done according the the relative significance of the sources, eg how much the sources are discussed in other sources. A bit tricky at times. Again, this discussion belongs at the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

HamzaMP

It seems probable that the IP is the same editor. What articles are you trying to clean up? Edward321 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few related to Serer history. Lamane is my next major task. If you look at Talk:Lamane you'll see some interesting comments. I and others have already fixed quite a few, removing fringe material, clarifying what is simply oral tradition, adding a few more sources, etc. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Kurmanji considered Southwestern?

Hello Dougweller I saw your recent edit on the Kurmanji article. As far as I know it is clearly considered by most linguists (Ludwig Paul, Jost Gippert, Windfuhr, Kreyenbork) as Northwestern and accepted as such. I tried to have a look at the both links you gave as source. Paul J. White is quoting Paul McDowall and Paul MCdowall simply repeats what other linguists wrote. In the book it claims that Vladimir Minorksy considered Kurmanji as Southern Iranian, which is a false allegation since Vladimir Minorksy considered Kurdish as Neo-Median and Median is a Northwest Iranian language. Its not even clear from the book wethever to consider it Northwest or Southwest Iranic. It simply quotes some opinions.

And to the second link http://www.scribd.com/doc/42632897/A-to-Z-of-the-Kurds

I couldnt find on page 112 any mentioning of Kurmanji as Southwestern Iranian language.

greets. Wikisupporting (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


I recommend you, "Paul Ludwig: Kurdisch Wort für Wort. Reise Know-How", "Usso Bedran Barnas und Johanna Salzer: Lehrbuch der kurdischen Sprache. Ein Standardwerk für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene", "Abdullah Incekan: Kurdisch kompakt. Lehr- und Übungsbuch mit Lösungsschlüssel und CD. Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden 2010"

Wikisupporting (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that 2nd link says on page 124, not 112, "At the present time, some would argue there are only two main Kurdish languages, or branches of Kurdish. Kurmanji and Sorani may be considered major dialects of one language, belong to the southwestern branch of Iranian languages, and have by far the most speakers of any Kurdish dialects. (Some, however, consider these two to be separate languages.) Gurani and Dimili (Zaza) may be considered dialects of a second language, belong to the northwestern branch of the Iranian lan- guages, and have far fewer speakers. As already noted, there are many different dialects of each one of what may be called the two main Kurdish languages. If one were to compare the Kurdish languages to the Romance languages, the relationship between the two main Kurdish languages might be somewhat analogous to that between French and Italian. To further complicate matters, some would consider the south- eastern dialects of Kurdish spoken in Iran from Sanadaj to Kirmanshah to be yet another Kurdish language. These southeastern dialects". We can't reject sources simply because we disagree with them, by the way. It's not unusual for what we consider reliable sources to disagree. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics - Vol. 6 By: Keith Brown; Anne H. Anderson et al. says "Kurdish belongs to the Central Iranian language group". Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again,

I know what you mean but the source youg gave is not based on current and accepted studies. Vladimir Minorsky considered Kurdish (Kurmanji) as a Neo-Median language so if he considered Kurdish as Southern Iranian (what I doubt) this would mean he considered Medians South Iranian as well which is today known to be false. Most of these sources are based on outdated studies. As far as I know most linguists of our time consider Kurmanji as Northwest Iranic of the Kurdish_ Central Iranic branch, this is probably what you mean. Central Iranic is branch of Northwest Iranian languages among some linguists. You can see it here. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmandschi

However I will try to get some links to other linguistic works to show you that Kurmanji is indeed considered as Northwest Iranic. Wikisupporting (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care so long as we write in an NPOV fashion, which means giving all significant points of view (in other words, I don't think Wikipedia should be definitive on this, now that I've looked into it further). We also need to be clear that 'Kurdish' is like 'Celtic' in that not all people who may be called Kurdish speakers can understand each other. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

[16] I'm not up on whether era changes are enforceable offenses, so this one is yours.--Tznkai (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's actually an NPOV issue, IP clearly warned, so 24 hour block. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

David

Hi there,

thanks. I will start using talk pages. Just have to find out how that works.

Meanwhile many thanks!

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahk7 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fume-ing

Not only no article, I can't even find any evidence for them or for their alleged 'parent company' Altria-TCB... Peridon (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor seems to call himself Altria (owned by entrepreneur and film producer Altria-TCB), and see [17]. That's possibly all there is. Ah, a Facebook page![18] Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
"Hollywood-London-New Delhi" - but not Peckham... Looks like one of those grandiose daydreams that require a page on Wikipedia to become real. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
http://education2nation.com/home/ looks to be another bit - just one page with no links (except for a circular one to itself...). Peridon (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
A busy bee. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

ServantofAllah93

You're busy so I'll be brief. The point of view from whatever minority sect this user belongs to, and his constant deletions and insertions in favor of it, has not gone unnoticed by Wikipedia readers and editors. You've been a witness to this and I expect his reaction to being challenged to be negative, so your testimony (in case he becomes confrontational) might be requested. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't logged in for a while and randomly, I found the guy deleted some comment I made on an article here. Just something to note. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ANE Chronology

Greetings Dougweller, I've only started writing articles about ANE a while ago, and I'm bewildered by the mess that ANE articles are in concern to which chronology they use. My understanding, and I'm by no an expert on the subject but from the sources I've been reading, is that Middle chronology is still the most accepted in literature, at least for Mesopotamia and the Levant. However, WP:ANE states that dates must be standardized to a short chronology which seems rather arbitrary, and without much discussion. I'm not looking to "standardize" the chronology used (that would be a massive effort, let alone a very divisive debate, I suspect) but can't we have some sort of a maintenance template (or at least a field in the WP banner on the talk page) that can help us tag articles according to the chronology used, so that we keep track of them? Yazan (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East. A template or category should be possible. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, will do that. Yazan (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikthestunned 09:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

David

Hi, I'm wondering why Nahk7 hasn't been banned from editing at David. Yopienso (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This editor is being entirely disruptive. How can that be stopped? Yopienso (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to reply that I'd placed another message on his talk page. Let's see how he responds to that. A 3RR report after the warning might have resulted in a block, but I'd rather he start discussing his edits before making them. We'll see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like your kindness worked. Yay! and thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nawaaf abbasy

I'd say bump it up to 2 weeks, since the previous one was 1 week, and he's likely to see it (I don't think he's had mote than 1 or 2 weeks of inactivity). At fist I was going to suggest indefinite, not as a punitive measure but just to ensure that he sees the various messages and warnings - once he's gotten the message he could appeal the block. But having said that I think 2 weeks would cover it, this time. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The only block, mine, was for 1 day, not a week, but we obviously need the block to have some effect. I'm happy to block for 2 weeks or indefinitely - I also view an indefinite block as useful at times simply to grab an editor's attention and hopefully draw them into useful dialog. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
(OK clearly I am under-caffeinated; I don't know where I saw 1 week.) I'd say do 2 weeks this time, as he'd probably be back within that time frame and (hopefully) get the message. After that, well, I'd count that as 3 strikes anyway. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Rename question

Do you mind if I rename this user you blocked last year per this request? MBisanz talk 16:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I can't figure out what he wrote in July (except maybe he is saying he is still eEdit summaryditing). Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Okey, I did it. I don't know his situation here, but figured it couldn't hurt. MBisanz talk 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Donaldduck100‎

Another Sridhar100 sock. I don't think there's much in terms of textual contributions, but linking of numerous uploads of his own from Commons. FYI in case you want to take a deeper look. —SpacemanSpiff 09:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No time, I'm afraid. In fact, I may be taking some time off shortly to recharge. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Could use your oversight

On this developing situation Talk:Louisiana#Bobby Jindal or Piyush "Bobby" Jindal and User talk:70.172.244.176. Concerns the situation that led to my block last spring. Would appreciate and help you could offer, I'm going to try to back away. Heiro 17:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Homunq/WP voting systems

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Homunq/WP voting systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

"Secrets of the deep" from New Scientist:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TcEtpS2Y2dE1TV1U

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Hello, Doug! I noticed the comment about Farrokh in your edit summary at Hungarian Turanism and thought I’d look him up … only to find myself redirected to Osprey Publishing. I notice you were involved in the redirection discussion on the (still extant) Talk page, where Osprey doesn’t appear to be mentioned at all. Could you please explain what happened—offhand I can’t imagine the relevance of Iranian nationalism to military picture-books—or point me to a relevant discussion page or two? (Farrokh's website claims he’s a lecturer at UBC: is he really just a counsellor?)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

He really is just a counsellor, despite what some websites say. No qualifications in history, etc. There was a long debate with a lot of nationalistic fervor, but at the moment I can't recall where and am about to take a wikibreak. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don’t understand the redirection to Osprey Publishing, which says nothing about the man and seems completely irrelevant. (No urgency whatsoever: just my idle curiosity. Enjoy your break!)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
As can be seen from the redirect, he was directed to Osprey Publishing#Shadows in the Desert a subsection of the article dealing with his book. That subsection has since been removed, hence the confusion. Yazan (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse my ignorance; how do you “see” a redirect other than by being sent to the target when clicking a link that says something else? Is there some way for a user to view the code or script that changes the destination?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
You can see it here or by clicking on the link in the small print saying "(Redirected from Kaveh Farrokh)" on the Osprey Publishing page. Yazan (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I hadn’t realized that those were special links.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. His text is very well referenced. Highly educated people were cited in his texts. Therefore we can use that in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.86 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If that were true, you could write a book, publish it under your IP address and we'd have to use it so long as you used 'highly educated people' as references, even if you misused what they wrote or were selective to present a particular point of view. If he wrote a book on college counselling we might use it as he has qualifications in that field, but not for politics or history. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

having trouble with Preacherlad

I've asked him once today to use English sources for the English wiki, especially on widely-covered topics in the media in which there is no shortage of English sources with the full information. He went right back and removed my English-newslink and replaced it with two in Arabic. I can't verify what they say, and doubt many other English Wiki users will either. Article is Grand Mosque of Aleppo. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

deletion of David R. Hawkins on the Colombia Pacific University Page

You deleted my entry for David R. Hawkins. I thought it met all the criteria for an entry. Can you please clarify.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

Arkiii (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)arkiiiArkiii (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. The matter was decided at AfD. NOR etc don't apply here. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It went through AfD twice and it ended in delete both times. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Well, The Washington Times front page is as mainstream as it gets - and it's an AP story, anyway. The weblink tool has been used the way I am using it widely across articles - I can of course italicize the name of the paper, but that would be the first time I've personally run across that. I've seen other admins post words to this effect on the Talk Pages: "English sources are desired for the English Wikipedia unless unique information in another language source is only to be found there...." So, it seems not everyone is on the same page about this? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the bit about English language sources but I'm surprised to hear about the weblink tool. The Washington Post is the mainstream paper, the Times is a minor paper in comparison, but as it's AP, no problem. I need to find out more about the web link tool. a quick search didn't find anything on it. Citation styles are meant to be consistent in an article, and that doesn't look consistent. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

--Everydaypoliticalpractice (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

White flag

Hi Dougweller,

Thanks for responding on my message, and suggestion to post it on the talk page of the article?

Which I now have done.

Sincerely --Everydaypoliticalpractice (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Message left on your userpage

Sobre el linaje Borja o Borja, en cuanto a que su descendencia agnaticia no se ha extinguido existe amplias referencias en la página en español de Wikipedia: Borgia.

También puede ver en internet abundante información. Por ejemplo: en español y otros idiomas, la página GeneaNet, en español y alemán Borja o Borgia; en español, Coloyia Borja.

Igualmente puede ver en facebook, en español: Genealogia e Historia; y, Amigos de la dinastía Borja Borgia.Julio Durán Borja (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy the break ..

Doug. Well-deserved. When you do get back can you take a glance at Ashkenazi Jews, and the query I posted on the talk page? Deals with ancient Rome (one of my interests also) and things I've seen you interested in (I gather from the above section lineages are something you know about). Of course, if it's not quite your cup of tea, faget it. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nova Albion

There are a number of items discussed in Talk for Nova Albion. A few are for possible deletions and one relates to a possible rewrite. I'd appreciate your comments before proceeding. Thanks. MikeVdP (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:File mover

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:File mover. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nahk7 at David again

Hello, I've just reported Nahk7 at AN/I for renewing his vandalism campaign at David. Don't know if you're interested in participating in the discussion. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Eyes needed

Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where, like with the article on the American Third Position Party, schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Continued disruption

Hi, just wanted to let you know that User:83.245.63.2 has continued to make non-constructive changes to the article Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Perhaps the article would benefit from a semi protect? I'm not sure, just a thought. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it alone now. Thank you for sorting this out. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Imperial College IPv6 block

Hi. Some time ago, I blocked Imperial College London's IPv6 netblock 2001:630:12:100E:0:0:0:0/64. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=497068004 for the history on this.

I've now recieved a request to unblock it, and have done so. I just thought I'd give you a heads up in case the sockpuppetry crops up again. However, this time we may well be able to enlist the help of the college's admins to help put a stop to it, if it happens again. See my talk page for details. -- The Anome (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 12:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

on Coelbren y Beirdd

Judging from what I've found, there does need to be an article on this, but it needs to be kept short, and it needs to emphasis that this is just another Iolo made-up thing. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it into a redirect though, and expand Iolo's article with it? Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Montgomery (historian)

I noted you inadvertently !voted twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Montgomery (historian), thought you might want to change something.John Z (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, that should have been a comment, brain died temporarily, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Article gutting and COI issues

Dear Dougweller,

Qworty is systematically gutting several articles I have worked on, including deleting bibliographies with publishers (often major presses), publication dates, and ISBN numbers, as "unsourced". When I inquired about her criteria and what sources are needed, she replied with a screed about a six year old arbcom and stated that ANY edits I make are COI and forbidden, ignoring the results of that very arbcom. She also refused to answer my civil question. I am interested in your specific objections to my edits. When this came up 4 years ago, one of the Administrators involved made this statement: "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge. Fred Talk 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)" The Arbcom recognized that I made many mistakes in the first year or so of my editing, but greatly improved and showed a willingness to stay within Wiki guidelines afterwards. I have been editing for years since then and have not engaged in the sort of activity which caused problems back them, and I have been trying to supply citations on many articles when they are asked for. Qworty isn't asking for them or tagging their need; he/she is just destroying the work of many editors in, IMO, a haphazard way. I do not want to engage in a conflict, but I question these actions, and welcome your input about them.Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Moni Aizik

I will revert your change, because there was vandalism on the page carried out by Moni Aizik's competitors. The same was done to another page about him. Do you see a coincidence here? Moni Aizik has all of the lawsuits against him closed, he is a prominent figure. As for my edit, it was neutral, unlike the biased change made to the article. I will bring back my version and add more links to it proving that what we had before was a mere vandalism.Romayan (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Commando Krav Maga

Aren't you supposed to be neutral? Of course, it's not Moni Aizik's bio, his name is mentioned only 2 times in the article! It's a history of a relatively new martial art. It has a short history, but it exists. Romayan (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am Simcha Jacobovici

And I have just sent an email to OTRS as per your request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjacobovici (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, Doug Weller!
As we Pilgrims sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy "Bob's 'yer Uncle day" or what ever your next Holiday is in Jolly Old England. May your turkey or venison or goose or ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! Buster Seven Talk 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)}
A traditional Thanksgiving dinner.

Hard to celebrate Thanksgiving when there are only two of us and it's a weekday, but hopefully we will have turkey and think of my family in America celebrating at the same time. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


Melungeon article

You have again lied to get your way on the Melungeon article, not once was there ANY sign of sock puppets...you should reserach up on what a sock puppet is before using Wikipedia as your own personal place to edit war and use articles for your own personal agenda. There was NO sock puppets used in the wikipedia's Melungeon article, this again shows how you and your 2 friends have deliberatly attempted to keep any ACTUAL melungeon genetics on the page. "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

IP Information - 76.8.167.38 Host name: 76.8.167.38.IMCTV.dynamic.mis.net Country: United States Country Code: US Region: KY City: Sidney NetRange: 76.8.160.0 - 76.8.191.255 CIDR: 76.8.160.0/19 OriginAS NetName: MISNET NetHandle: NET-76-8-160-0-1 Parent: NET-76-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation RegDate: 2007-02-28 Updated: 2012-03-20 OrgName: Mikrotec Internet Services — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

General information and location of 166.147.72.3 IPv4 address: 166.147.72.3 Reverse DNS: mobile-166-147-072-003.mycingular.net RIR: ARIN Country: United States City: Doylestown, PA RBL Status: Clear


Come on Doug you have to actually research the ip's..you can't just say that because several people disagree with you that they sock puppets sorry but it does not work that way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

166.147.72.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an IP from a range frequently used by indef blocked sock puppeteer User:Marburg72. He is an indef blocked user who, when he occasionally pops up to be WP:DISRUPTIVE, has his edits reverted on sight. This has led this IP range, as well as several related ones, being range blocked for significant periods. I don't think anyone thinks you are another of his socks. But you are someone who has yet to take their disputed sourcing to WP:RSN, who has yet to abide by WP:BRD, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE and WP:EDITWAR. Continuing to insert unreliably sourced material into this article will result in this matter being taken to the WP:3rr board. Please come up with reliable sourcing or stop inserting this information into the article. Thank you, Heiro 00:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Reported

As per wikipedia rules I have to inform you that you have been reported for harassment and using false acusations of sock puppetry to keep editors (who pay their own money to wikipedia thru contrabutions to keep wikipedia running) from using wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.167.38 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Montgomery (historian)

Hi Doug, hope you're well. I've e-mailed every e-mail address on the international co-operation department at Megatrend tonight after getting no response to my e-mail yesterday. I'll forward you any responses I get so we can have a chat about them perhaps? Thanks for the idea anyhow. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


Ok. It would be interesting to see what Montgomery says about this. If he was never President, that could be a reason for the lack of replies - a desire to protect him. And as I think I said, it's suggestive that the Serbian sources that mention him don't call him a past president. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir but it said on 大明史 but I guess I'll keep this to myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.103.86 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

British Israelism

Hello Dougweller.

I see that you have made some comments in relation to the above article, comments which I think are relevant to the situation at hand, so I am contacting you to request any input you may be able to contribute.

The situation at hand is that I made what I felt were some basic edits, and they were repeatedly deleted by a contributor, even after I made an adjustment.

I am basically new to this scenario, so I hadn't been aware of the Talk page, etc. At any rate, I have been reading the talk page, and the content of my edit had already been largely addressed by other contributors, including yourself.

So, since I am tackling the deplorable state of the article in question and intend to do a significant edit, I would like to try and build a little consensus, and the more the merrier in the that process!

I would appreciate it if you could take the time to read through the recent entries on the Talk page and participate in the course of events leading to as substantial an edit as possible.

Thanks. Ubikwit (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Era style

Hello. Because you participated at some point in this lengthy discussion about the wording of MOS guidelines pertaining to the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE, I thought you might want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). I'm trying to notify all the individuals who took part in the earlier discussion but haven't weighed in yet for the current one. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

AWB permission

Hello, I noticed that you are an administrator and since we worked together (a way to put it) on Kent Whealy, I was wondering if you could look at the AWB CheckPage and possibly grant me access? I've had my name there for days now. I'd appreciate it! Thanks, JJJ (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — JJJ (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, Doug. The IP we have been reverting at Kamal Salibi just hit 4RR. Also not being very eloquent in his/her defense: [19]. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Reported. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dougweller, Jprg, I replied to your report, asking for a bit of patience. He's been responsive on the talkpage, and we might find a solution without blocking. Yazan (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, feel free to weigh in on the discussion here. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It is possible that your 3RR complaint may be closed with no action, based on optimism about the editor's future behavior. Do you have any comment on that idea? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. Numbered list item

Ian Stevenson and Reincarnation research

Hey, Doug. If you want to take a break from Druids, I'd appreciate it if you could cast an eye on these articles. A lot of the sources are awful and are presented as valid scientific research. Quite a bit of POV-pushing and apologetics, too. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I really hate being involved with this stuff, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

kent whealy

Doug- As I have mentioned, there is a huge difference between a one time newspaper article and a continual posting on wikipedia. You have chosen to report his involvment in prop 37 in the most sensational and titillating fashion possible. No good deed goes unpunished. Mr Whealy and his family are very much living persons and you are exponentially increasing the possibility of harm coming to them from your more opportunistic readers. Please stop this wholly gratuitous assault on his privacy.Treastor (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by harm, but this information is on hundreds if not thousands of websites and in our article on Proposition 37 which lists the top 10 donors for and against. It's a notable and significant fact about him and belongs in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

About the article "History of the..."

Hi, Sorry that I tried editing the article. I have enough of things of my own to make time for defending my scientific contributions. Wiki isn't for me.148.168.96.21 (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for. If you are used to writing articles, essays, etc editing Wikipedia can be very alien - I suspect I've lost most of my essay writing skills. In articles, essays, etc. you are usually trying to make an argument, very different from what we are doing. It's a shame though as I'm sure you could be a good contributor if you got WP:NOR and associated policies under your belt. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

Hi, I see that you have had past involvement with semis at Aurangzeb. In the absence of Nev1, who was the last to semi-protect the thing, would you be prepared to review what has been going on since the semi expired recently? I seem to be struggling to control poor edits made by IPs: I opened a discussion concerning their image changes and, well, practically everything else that they do is unsourced, overlinked, removing valid maintenance tags, poorly phrased, irrelevant, incorrectly sourced and/or quoted ... You get the picture, I am sure! - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Blade has just sorted it out. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Great, glad he did that. Sorry, distracted by real life and other editing. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Not another of the admin corps who is stuffing their face full of turkey and booze today? <g> Sitush (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2012

(UTC)

Turkey and sweet potato fries, nothing complicated or huge, no booze for me or I'll fall asleep! Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, enjoy it and my best wishes to you and yours. Sorry to have intruded. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You never intrude. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for sticking up for me when Jaworski took things out of context to slander me behind my back. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Descendants of the Emperor of Atlantis

I appear to be unable to get rid of one Hughes cite - on Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde. Agricolae (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully sorted now. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it stuck the third time - I was up against 3RR with no end in sight. Then it ended (probably due to your support). Thanks. Agricolae (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Not that this will come as any surprise, but at lease someone's motivations are out in the open: "The best defence that I can see, as shown by this most ancient of genealogies, is to overwhelm the opposition with so many articles that some of the truth gets through." [20] Agricolae (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
RfCU time? Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that is probably the way to go, although I am a little afraid of a boomerang, given that I am sure I have not been a model of civility at times, and have certainly violated 3RR trying to keep up with him (in addition to seeing an entire week evaporate). Some of the AfDs should be closing tomorrow so maybe depending on what the response is. Agricolae (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You may well not be the best person to get involved in starting one. I'm kicking myself for forgetting his formal warning under ArbCom sanctions, see my latest edit at the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


Hata clan

Hello Doug,

Thanks for your recent input regarding editing the British Israelism article.

There are similar issues on a related page, involving editing conflict between myself and the same Jon C. from the BI page and his associates.

A DNA evidence source that I lifted from the Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article and posted there has been removed a couple of times, so it has become a cumbersome process. I have uploaded some new information from a reliable source on the article page, as well as another genetics study on the Talk page.

I'm trying to gather some ideas and input as to how to post genetics references to the page in a manner that is consistent with Wiki policy. The people taking them down would seem intent on promoting believability in the debunked doctrines related to descent from the Ten Lost Tribes.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

We'll see what happens to your latest edit there. You've run into the problem I encountered when I was new - treating articles like essays or journal articles and adding material that disputes the claims made in the article but isn't specifically about the subject of the article. Original research which is fine normally but not here. I presume you've read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Do take a look at WP:NPOV and more specifically although based on our NPOV policy WP:FRINGE. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I think that the statement on the Fringe page, "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas" probably fits this scenario.
The edit I made today has been left as is. The person with whom I've mainly been having the conflicts tried to assert that there was no connection between BI and the version of virtually the same doctrine promulgated in Japan regarding descent from the Lost Tribes. I'd added BI to the "See also" list, and he removed it. Today he didn't touch that, but did add a clarifying remark to the BI reference on that list, which is not a problem. The edit I made today did not contain a reference to genetics, for which it may be necessary to create a new section, which seems ridiculous in light of the anachronistic nature of the subject matter.
On a related issue, what do you think of using the genetics references that relate either only to the Y-chromosome research on Japanese or Jews? Reference to such sources is all that is provided on other pages, though I believe Parfitt does draw some conclusions with regard to the British, at any rate. On the Pashtun people page, however, there is also recently published research that doesn't mention Jews, but precludes the possibility of a genealogical link. And that research is not even as overwhelmingly conclusive as the research on the Japanese that I've just uploaded to the Talk page, which accounts for 98% of the population (survey wise), with absolutely no overlap.
I basically lifted the first genetics link from the Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article, where my edits have been contested as well (some of which were made before I had read any polices), but that source for contravening DNA evidence has been left untouched. I think that these people may have the anachronistic notion that the Hata clan is an existing kinship group, like the Pashtun, which is not the case.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Please comment on Template talk:History of Hungary

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:History of Hungary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Janet Wu (WHDH) article

Hi Doug. I see that the OTRS Trouble Ticket (OTRS ticket 2012111210011903) was handled by you in the matter of Janet Wu (WHDH). What about the article's history pages --- are they to be purged as well in this kind of matter? Just a curiosity. I'm glad it all worked out in the end. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think that is needed and might cause more harm than good. Thanks very much though for your help with this. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Very good, Doug. Thanks for your kind and helpful reply. Bests Ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Paul Bedson

I saw your note at Sandstein's talk page. I'm putting together an RFC/U on Paul here, in a sandbox, and have asked Agricolae and Ealdgyth to look at it. I've not done an RFC/U before so would appreciate any advice on whether I'm going about this the right way. I'd like to make it narrowly focused and make the remedy something Paul might agree with. I haven't assembled any evidence diffs yet; I'm waiting to get some feedback on the two paras I have there.

One related point is that much of the evidence diffs will have to come from the two deleted pages and their talk pages (and the soon to be deleted Godulf Geoting). Could you userfy those two pages for me so I can use diffs from them in the evidence? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do. But you do realise you can go straight to Arbitration Enforcement if you think that's a better course? Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Surely this would be out of scope, since it's not pseudoscience? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
It's fringe, but maybe not. But it's worth looking at the discussion and the deleted talk pages as there are relevant comments on those pages.
User:Dougweller/Ancestry of the kings of Britain
User:Dougweller/Genealogia Lindisfarorum

Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doug. I happened to see the discussion at Sandstein's page about Pseudoscience. It is conceivable that you might get some action at WP:AE, but starting out with an WP:RFC/U to collect the data seems best. An RFC/U would also let Paul tell his side of the story. For most admins, a dispute about off-the-beaten-track issues will make their eyes glaze over unless the evidence is very well organized. (People are familiar with the disputes in U.S. politics, but not those in Anglo-Saxon history). AE is not used to seeing this kind of dispute, though if the case were strong, it is possible that sanctions would be considered. Immanuel Velikovsky would probably fall under ARBPS. Not sure about Anglo-Saxon kings. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This all started with some fringes stuff (see the bit about Emperor of Atlantis up further) that Bedson had found and was trying to publicise (see as an example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Montgomery (historian). AE might have worked during the discussion here[21] particularly given his fringe work I discussed with him on his talk page last month (see the Doug and Paul Atlantis discussion), but this is not as clearcut. So RfC/U it is. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

Dear Dougweller, I am the copyrightholder of the book. You can reverse the deletion or insert the reference again:

S. Eva Nessenius; 2012: Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - The Biogenic Origin of the Early Continents. ISBN 978-3-8482-1837-0 http://www.uploadarea.de/upload/e4keu1ttfdz938tfoppzya8k2.html

As I have no financial interest, I gave this PDF as free contribution. The content of the publication is essencial for this subject and therefore also for the Wikipedia page about earth expansion with its qualified critical considerations about this theory.

Kind regards - Geomensch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geomensch (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll come back to you on that, but are you also claiming copyright for [22] which you linked to? Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many links to scientific publications in the "Notes". Did you ask every single scientific journal for permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geomensch (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to an official website are fine, copies of articles are not. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Raelians

Changes have recently been made to the articles Topfreedom and Elohim regarding the matter of the Raelians. I seem to recall you were involved in the previous discussion regarding the comparative lack of RS's on the subject, which would presumably impact on the amount of weight to be given the matters in articles. The discussion regarding this matter, which was first raised at User talk:Pass a Method by myself and another editor, has for some reason, been replied to at Talk:Topfreedom. I would welcome your input regarding the changes. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bedson diffs?

Doug, you suggested that the RfC/U mention his "flippant and obscure comments" and his comments about "truth"; do you have any particular diffs in mind? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Geomensch (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are so many links leading directly to the publications.

Is this an official website? http://aa.springer.de/papers/8339003/2300831/small.htm

I found it on the Wikipedia page "protoplanetary disc".

Is this an official website? http://indico.lal.in2p3.fr/getFile.py/access?contribId=s16t1&sessionId=s16&resId=1&materialId=0&confId=a05162

I think it is just fine. The admins thought the same.

Do you make any differences between the members here?

Regards - Geomensch Geomensch (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The first link is clearly Springers official site. The second link is to an organization that deals with conferences and might be ok from a copyright point of view but possibly not as a source. I don't know what you mean by making differences between members (which we call editors - you're one). I'm an Administrator, as is VsmithDougweller (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

John Limbert/Kaveh Farrokh

Can you take a look at this problem please.Thanks in advance.--Gomada (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My first response is that Farrokh's website seems to be hosting copyvio so we can't link to it. If the article is just cited and not linked, and we attribute it to John Limbert (eg "According to Johm Limbert) it's probably ok. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
But there is something wrong that i dont understand, we have decided Kaveh Farrokh is not relaible source. Ok, he ist Ph.D etc. But who is John Limbert? he has Ph.D in History and Middle Eastern Studies. So, how can John Limbert be a linguist that, we accept him as reliable source for language articles?--Gomada (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he's needed anyway, deleted and rewrote. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Policy list

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Policy list. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tanit

Hi, Doug. I see you've made some contributions to the Tanit article in the past. Hope I'm not treading on your toes there. I've tried to patch a few things up and get rid of the "Berber nationalist" thing that occasionally afflicts the page. Otherwise, I don't have that much to go on. Do you have access to Serge Lancel's Carthage by any chance? Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, and looking at our local library online my guess is they've lost theirs, why not try inter-library loan? Thanks for your work there today. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I might do that if I have the time. --Folantin (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States

Thanks for your recent edits, this article just makes me despair. I do think the subject is notable, there is certainly enough coverage on it in reliable sources but *so* much of this article's particular content is spurious/poorly-sourced as well as being mostly based on what I think of as Internet gossip. The charts are especially problematic to me, last time I took a close look at them it looked like they were all sourced from user-submitted sites (WP articles, ancestry.com, etc.) and were credited as being specially created for this article. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the genealogical relationships are notable? I was just about to AfD the article, but I'd like your comments first. Thanks for your thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If one does a general Google search for this subject, there sure are a lot of sources indicating at least major interest and even maybe indicating the concept of Wikipedia notability. BUT as I see it, there are so many problems in the present version (sourcing, original research, unsupported assertions, WP:BLP concerns, unattributed content/possible violations of copyrighted content, etc.), at this point I think AfD is a valid option. If the AfD passes, then perhaps then someone could possibly re-start it from scratch, keeping everything scrupulously-sourced. Even if the AfD doesn't pass, perhaps the extra attention would result in a much-improved article. Shearonink (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is about relationships between presidents, I'm not convinced this is discussed in reliable sources in any depth. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure either, just that from all the Google results, when doing a general search for "presidential genealogy" or a Google Books search for "presidential genealogy" there are thousands of hits and there seems to be a great amount of interest in the subject. In any case, I do think an AfD for the present version is called-for. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The reliability of the material is extremely suspect. If we're talking about nineteenth cousins once-removed, we're tracing one line back 20 generations, which extremely conservatively means we're looking back into the 1500s for the common ancestor, and probably much earlier. The part tracing everybody back to Alfred is likewise particularly humorous, rather like how every living mathematician can be assigned an Erdos number. My sense is that a very, very few relationships have ever enjoyed any significant attention (the two father-son pairs, for instance) and that the rest are at best genealogical trivia if they are even true. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. And I emphasize that the article is not actually about presidential genealogy but about the relationships between presidents, which doesn't seem to be widely discussed if at all. It's hard to distinguish that in Google searches perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been thinking this for years, that the page really should be AfDed, but I was never willing to deal with the expected backlash. Genealogists are obsessive, and for any given topic, someone will have compiled the shared genealogies of that surname or prosopographical group. Thus for a summary of genealogical research results to be notable, it should take more than just the fact that an obsessive genealogist has put it on their web page or published it. Agricolae (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Agricolae. Even though I have done genealogy since the '70s, I believe the article needs to show notability for its continued existence. As it stands now, I see nothing notable about U.S. Presidents being "Ump"-teenth cousins AND half way through the article it becomes a coatrack with the inclusion of "Presidents related to royalty". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that too. The relationships among presidents does occasionally get mentioned when the new guy gets elected, but only as passing trivia, so that doesn't get it a page ont he subject, but then it is being used to coatrack the royal descents and royal kinship, which has nothing to do with the article's title. And it is this coatracking royal descent that has been most prone to accumulating iffy genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, with editors like Bearian, who should know better, saying 'keep' because they are ignoring the policy reason I put forward as my deletion reason, it may get kept again. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Tell me 'bout it. I am in one of those myself. Agricolae (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias

I don't care how hateful, bigoted, and backwards some political parties and organizations can be; there's no excuse for the bias I have seen you add to articles. You'd think an administrator would leave their contentiousness out of Wikipedia articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.45.151 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

How about some diffs to back up those accusations? Or log in to your account so we know who you are? Or are you a blocked sock? Heiro 04:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly afraid to reveal their Wikipedia account (or regular IP address) and not worth even pissing on. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not need a Wikipedia account as I only read articles. And sorry, I over-reacted last night when I originally wrote this.
I am doing a paper on extremist groups and while I was going through, I stumbled upon the article on StormFront.org and noticed the link to "Bigotry" in the 'See Also'. I went into the article's history and saw that someone had already tried removing it and you reverted it. Of course StormFront is a bigoted site, but is there really a reason to leave "Bigotry" in the 'See Also'? I had just finished researching Islamic extremism and I didn't see anything similar to leaving "Bigotry" in any of those articles. As an outsider, it makes the article look inconsistent with the other articles and overall does not fit the stated goal of Wikipedia on NPOV.
107.193.45.151 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am sure that there are plenty of sources that refer to the site and use the bigotry or bigots word. It should not be difficult to include that within the body of the article. I can kind of see that you think linking in See also might be considered a bit pointy but, at the end of the day, it will be linked somewhere. This sounds like a, um, storm ... in a teacup. - Sitush (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I've had some pretty vicious attacks by editors here that I've had to block or disagreed with, some taking place off-wiki. That article is one of thousands whose edits I see on my "Watchlist" and it was the IP's only edit (there was one 2 years ago but that was quite likely someone else). The link seemed reasonable as Sitush explains above, and I have no idea what links are on similar articles. 06:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Godulf

Could you userfy Godulf Geoting, for the evidence diffs? We'll probably need to do the same with Progonoplexia in a few days. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you restore the revisions for the talk page as well? Looks like you only did it for the article itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. The redirects made it tricky. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC goal

Take a look here, where it says a permanent topic ban is an impossible or at least ill-considered goal. That's what the current draft asks for. Should we change it to a one year ban? Or go for it, on the basis that that's what's actually needed? Or ask for change in behaviour?

I saw your note about structure and will make sure the RfC includes all necessary sections if/when it goes live. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tocharians

Thanks for your advice. I hope the dispute is settled now. Krakkos (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U ready to go

Let me know if you see anything else to be done; if not I'll get it going. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Med race

Unfortunately he has been altering the chart which represents Ripley's tabulation of racial characteristics. Lupus clearly self-identifies as a member of the "Mediterranean race" since he gives his own eye colour as an argument about the "inaccuracy" of statements in one of his edit summaries [23]. He's altering the chart on the Alpine race page too. This chart was added by an editor a couple years ago to stop the endless alterations of the text on these race pages. IPs kept changing statements about hair colour, nose shape etc, so it seemed that the best solution was to simply insert a table drawn up by the theorist who created the three race tabulation in the first place - but editors just alter that now, even though it's clearly marked as Ripley's table. Lupus just blanks his talk page whenever a message is left, and appears to make no edits to article talk pages, so it does not look as though discussion will develop. Paul B (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but he needs to be given formal warnings. I see he's been reverting another Admin. Hidden comment for the table? Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
yea, that's a good idea - the hidden comment. Paul B (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Uighur People page - editing request

Hi,

Was just wondering if I could edit the history section of the Uighur people page.

My account is part of a academic editathon group from the University of Birmingham's history department (UK). We are currently updating wikipedia pages concerning the Silk Roads 400BCE-1200AD with full and correct references.

The additions to the Uighur page we were planning on making were about trading connections to the Sogdians, silk trade, manichaeism, relationship with the Tang Chinese, evidence of commerce from Turfan graves, changes from nomadism to sedentary living at Karabalghasum and other information. All this with full and correct historical references - no personal opinions included.

I'd appreciate it if you could let us know if and how we can contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RXB037 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT the article is only semi-protected: you should be able to edit it while logged in. (talk page stalker)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying for me. RXB037, why'd you contact me? Funny, I used to be a lecturer there. Let me know if you have any more problems, I'll try to reply more quickly! Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Self-published authors

Category:Self-published authors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Considering User_talk:Dougweller#Paul_Bedson_diffs.3F, note that the RfCU has started: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson. You are an editor who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic so I have notified you. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

About my edits

I just stopped by to say sorry for my previous edits. I didn't know exactly how Wikipedia worked. Lupus Bellator (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting my Wikipedia Changes

You have recently reverted several corrections I have made to the Cro-Magnon Wikipedia article without legitimate justification. Carleton Coon is cited as a source in numerous Wikipedia articles as he was a great anthropologist and, regardless of whether or not he was an alleged "racist", his personal beliefs would have no bearing on the facts. It also would not matter if Henry Fairfield Osborn was "anti-Darwin" or not, and he is certainly not obsolete, and this is beside the fact that I cited information that was not attributed to him but Aleš Hrdlička. The information was merely conveniently placed in a book by Henry Osborn.

I am kindly asking you to undo your unjustified reverting of my corrections of the Cro-Magnon Wikipedia article. Kapture-N-Kill Commando (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Spoken like a true female, Dougweller? ;) Drmies (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Lol. Well, he's gone for 48 hours, and I wouldn't bet that he'll be around much after that, not unless he decides to play nice. But his username doesn't exactly make me optimistic about that. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You know, sometimes you read these outbursts and you have to check your calendar to make sure it still says "2012". Drmies (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
What, with this thread and the one below, perhaps you should rename your talk page to "Dougweller's barbershop" . With a strapline about fringes being a special(i)ty. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look

Hi,

I recently added "Rabbinic literature on the subject" on the page "Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites".

It represents the only textual references on the subject before conversion of Afghans to Islam.

However, a user "Ubikwit" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ubikwit undid this info. Unfortunately he is also a supporter of British Israelism, a theory that supports the British as Hebrews while at the same specifically rejecting an Afghan Israelite heritage.

Since the said article is the "Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites", stress being on the word "theory", it is important to add all views or references on the subject of which the rabbinic literature are very unique and therefore important. (They are the only references on the subject for that particular era in Afghan history or supposed history for that matter).

Please view both edits here and help decide whether my edits (Rabbinic literature) should be included on the page or not since I cannot just go and undo his recent deletion of my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_Pashtun_descent_from_Israelites&curid=1627839&diff=526197420&oldid=526191360

Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Doug, I see that you have addressed Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan's edits with regard to the unreliability of his sources in the past. He seems to suggest in posting the "Rabbinical literature" section that it had been up before and was removed "since his last edit".
Obviously he misidentifies me as a supporter of BI, for misdirection perhaps, but it is clear from my posts that I support none of the claims of descent from the biblical Lost Ten Tribes, in accord with Parfitt. I received that book in the mail today, incidentally, and there are a number of quotable passages that specifically address issues relevant to a number of related pages, but not the page in question.
I requested indefinite semi-protection for the page, but was told it would have to be full protection, and that maybe dispute resolution was the way to go. It doesn't seem like a full-blown dispute though, as Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan would appear to be repeating past activities, maybe even re-posting edits that have been removed previously due to unreliable sourcing. What is the status, incidentally, of something like "rabbinical literature", which basically pertains to interpretation of passages from scripture applied to the Lost Tribes?
At any rate, if people like Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan insist on having the opinions of advocates of the theory included and have references valid for that purpose, should we consider creating some sort of "Proponents" section to present that material in a manner that clearly represents it as biased advocacy?--Ubikwit (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Obviously it seems that the user Ubikwit wants to have this article go in a particular direction. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia however it was not created to portray one point of view. I dont think Ubikwit even understands what the word Theory holds in itself. We take all sides of an argument and portray them as they are without bias. Whereas Ubikwit is hell bent on removing information relevant to that very end.
What most English speaking readers dont know is that in South Asia and among middle eastern scholars and even among Jewish Rabbis The Theory of Afghan descent from the Israelites is not a rarely discussed fringe theory of low credibility. Most of these users and speakers only have online sources on the subject or biased writers with an agenda of promoting Anglo Saxon or Celtic Israelism. I have nothing against such people trying to convince themselves of being Israelites and so I dont go out of my way on such pages to try to remove original research or relevant material. Interestingly, you'll find supporters of British Israelism rejecting certain Afghan tribes as Semites whereas learned Jewish rabbis preaching an Afghan Israelite heritage while at the same time rejecting a British one. Even more interesting is the fact that certain Afghan tribes (NOT ALL) never say the are Jews only that they have an oral tradition of an Israelite heritage. Whereas there are many Christians hell bent on trying to be descended from the Ten Lost Tribes, it seems it isnt enough for them to prove their point but to also go out and disprove even discredit others probably in the hope of being the only remaining claimants. This behavior of theirs is well documented.
I am a researcher, I want to provide all info on the subject whether it goes one way or the other. I dont believe to be an Israelite or think or hope to be descended from them. Let Ubikwit create a page on wikipedia refuting this theory and I'll put info relevant to that topic as well. What I wouldnt do is go about deleting material I dont like personally because of certain beliefs I might have. Even material that might contain original research.
The section Rabbinic literature is important, it is one of the very few references dealing with Khurasan (Afghanistan) and hence Afghans before Islam. It does not require a 2000 year old rabbi naming an Afghan by name & hs father's name to be acceptable here. That is what research is all about. The sources are credible. Those that might not be acceptable to senior editors can be replaced or changed.
Lastly the world could be a better place if there werent so many religious fundamentalists spreading their own beliefs everywhere and then pretending to be completely harmless. Religion in my opinion is a constant source of evil. Good day. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah: Pompeii

Doug, could you take a look on the talk page of Pompeii at the "Sodom and Gomorrah" thread. I don't know....but i think I may have found aRS for the information I laughed at so hard! I will not be putting it in unless you feel the source is reliable. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Userfy Progonoplexia

Can you userfy progonoplexia and the related talk page too? The AfD just concluded. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

South Park: The Stick of Truth

You messaged me saying, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at South Park: The Stick of Truth, you may be blocked from editing." I had no clue what South Park: The Stick of Truth is, let alone know/edit of its Wikipedia page. What vandalism did I do? If there's a way for me to see my edit history then sorry - I'm new to wikipedia. Sorry if this is in the wrong format or the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeroy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Hi again. I am certain I didn't do those 3 vandalisms so I'll change my password to ensure my friends aren't doing this. Thank you for the help about contesting edits and edit history; I don't know if there is a reputation type system on Wikipedia but regardless, thumbs up :) thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeroy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear this is sorted. It was odd seeing a mix of vandalism and constructive edits. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock

Yeah its WP:LTA/Grawp--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have transferred the majority of the Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani article to Minhaj-i-Siraj, which was an article of the same person. Could you please delete the Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani article? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've created a redirect Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani -> Minhaj-i-Siraj. A redirect appears more appropriate than deletion in this case. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds ok, thanks both. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for taking the time to edit the Tabor article when all I did was complain about it! Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Melungeons, again

Would you mind taking a look at the talk page Talk:Melungeon [24], [25]? Would you describe the indiscriminate copy and pasting of those large blocks of text a WP:COPYVIO violation? The user still apparently hadn't read, or understood in any case, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or WP:RELIABLE, and is back under a new IP. Heiro 02:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. As you can see from here User talk:76.8.167.38#Melungeon article in this conversation I had with them while they were blocked, I still do not think they have either looked at or understood sourcing policies here. Since they have returned I have tried to steer clear of the article. But I am beginning to think WP:COMPETENCE or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is going to get the better of them sooner rather than later. Cheers, Heiro 07:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I came here because of that same page... I simply do not understand what this editor's point is...that Melungeons are Portuguese, that they are not, that they are African, that they are not...And what is the point of all the mountainous walls of text that this editor continues to churn out? It seems that they have simply moved their posts from the article (76.8.167.38/76.8.172.103/76.8.174.113) to its talkpage and are hoping that if they throw enough text at the Melungeon article that eventually some of it will stick. Shearonink (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle

So you are telling me that Wikipedia does not welcome discussion, on facts, as 'they see them' ? That's not diplomacy or intellectual stimulation, but imho, dogma and disinterest in new facts as they may become available over time. No one lives in a vacuum doug, I should hope you realize that, and if Wikipedia thinks it can its not a place Im sure I can find comfort in? We are suppose to be open to new information, new material, as your own 'reliable source' page speciifcaly says, right ? Im suppose to be able to challenge something, or so I thought I read, by at least offering <ref> ( yes, I think my sources were reliable, and pertinent to the wiki article) So if Im allowed to make changes , based on a 'challenge' as that pages calls it, and I name my sources by using <ref>, then why is my post deleted ?

I still have yet to see you answer me directly about what change I need to make ! YOu have the direct responsibility to answer that question, or be deemed completely irrelevant to the conversation, and trust me, I as a independent journalist , writer and compassionate thinker, will do just that in spite of your willingness to thrwart me with no specifics as to what you claim I did incorrectly.

I think Wikipedia's attempt to play god is incredulous. That isn't an attack, but a personal opinion, based on what has been done to MY EDITS, without my permission and obviously with zero malice on MY part to bring a educated point to the supposed 'facts' about Paul The supposed Apostle of Jesus. Does an apostle really take the position directly in opposition to a noted figure of history and then try to maintain its affectiveness or credibility,,,I wonder. There are websites, believe it or not, that do not take down peoples 'opinions about facts' just because they disagree ( unless filthy or harmful, etc.), but instead send someone a notification TO change it, or they will ( and give that person time to do so out of respect). I am beginning to think that doesn't work at Wikipedia because some people can't handle 'facts' that don't fit into their revised opinions.

That's why I was posting what I did, not because I felt that what I was saying was absolute , but that the supposed 'facts' on Wikipedia aren't absolute either ( and you should not delude yourself into thinking they are ), so that my new information was at least as factual as what's on Wikipedia, and that given that article was about Paul, as was my entire 'edit' ( as I recall), I fail to see how what I did was unfaCtual or didn't contain reliable sources, and I must certainly find it highly irregular and questionable that you remove my edit without complete disclosure as to why. I understand you have to maintain some modicum of fairness and stick to 'known facts', obviously, but its getting into a very grey area, when one ( or afew) people get to decide who and what those facts are, and where they can come from and we've been done that road and we know how it ended. I've seen similar posts by other people, and other 'doctors' shall we say, and I find it all a bit discomforting ( as did he).

If you continue to fail to disclose why, I will continue on my own obviously ,and on my own website and wherever else my typing fingers will travel. Facts matter obviously, and you do not have the luxury to make up your own. Imagine if the writers of the dead sea scroll, which you may find no favor in, decided to give up and not place them in protective hidden places away from hands that would repudiate them and 'remove them' from public record, just because they could, and just because they weren't reliable sources or somehow pertinent enough to a given topic. Just imagine-

cheers nl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neighborlee (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wikipedia is by definition and purpose a place to accumulate verifiable information from published reliable sources. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a place for speculation, original research or synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the editor's talk page, sources for this need to discuss Paul as well as meet our criteria as reliable sources. That's basic policy and if Neighborlee doesn't like our policy that's his choice, but he has to follow it or not edit. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your review of my recent action

Please see the discussion at Talk:Religion#Image, in which I admit I rather stupidly restored an RfC. In retrospect, I am far from sure that I was correct in doing so, but am less familiar with RfC practices than I should be. Also, I believe it may very much be worth reviewing the recent edit histories of the page in question, particularly regarding edit summaries, which I believe have been mentioned to an editor other than you, specifically User:Adjwilley, at least once. There may be the basis for an RfC/U because of that, although, given recent comments I have made on my user talk page, I think it might be seen as problematic if I were to be one of the two initiators of that RfC/U. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Next steps with Paul Bedson

It's been a week and the RfC/U is settling down and is more or less unanimous. Time to post something at AN? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, there was a major addition today. It needs to go several more days to give people a chance to respond to that. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Cyrus the Geat - do not undo - opening a new title on the page requires reliable references.

Dougweller, Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cyrus the Great page, you may be blocked from editing. It is called "onus probandi", which means you should never expect anyone else to build up a case for you, if you want to challenge the authenticity of the decree and start a new title, you will need to do your own research. The current single reference is too weak and unreliable, for which a main title be created. The burden of proof is on you if you want to open a new title. Plus the text is still there, only the title has been removed. Thank you. Armaiti (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny guy. You change the wording of an obvous quote and I warn you about it, then you accuse me of vandalism for restoring a section heading (while both explaining why in my edit summary, suggesting you do the work of building the section and putting some obvious sources on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Dougweller. I read over your comment in the talk page of the "Authorship of the Epistle of Hebrews". Thank you for taking the time to go over this matter. And explain things. It is a little disappointing since I did put a lot of work into putting a very factual matter that some scholars and theologians do lean towards Pauline writership, as well as the point about adjusting writing style to fit a more unique and Jewish audience, as well as the points of some similarities in wording noted. It seems that there's just a problem with weak sourcing, not the actual factual specific statements per se necessarily. I thought though that in situations like this, modifying or trying to maybe find better sources for certain statements was the recommendation, rather than wholesale reverting and removing. Can at least maybe some of the points be restored, if not all? Because to be honest, this article is a wee bit lopsided. It seems to ignore that there are scholars (the minority true but still out there) that either believe completely that Paul wrote Hebrews, or at the very least think probably so. And also the reasons they have for that view. Can something be done at least? Thank you.Gabby Merger (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources simply failed our criteria. Did you search Google books? Beware of Xulon Press as that's self-published - although if the author is clearly well known that might be ok. Avoid snippets, as they lack context. See [26]. Try go get recent stuff. See if we have articles on the author. Look for academic presses although that's not a requirement. Try to attribute and not make general statements. I've restored some of it. I've queried changing the name Yahweh - I've seen others do this and your edits made me want to ask about it, see [27]. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Eden Proof of Heaven

I do not understand why you deleted my edit for Eden Proof of Heaven. I have bought the book and clearly written the same sentence as in the book. Clearly the points i made merit to be in the "Observations" section at the bare minimum.

We need more people to see it and may be then we can edit it if they disagree with it.

I read your explanation on why you removed my edits.But I want to link Om and proof of heaven OM as both are same concept and i want people to learn more about Om as it may enrich their understanding on the subject.So let me know how you want me to link the 2 pages. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiva321 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dont confuse sock puppet with meat puppets

Meat puppet are considered similar dangerous as sock puppets by wikipedia standards.

Go to talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson#Banned_chauvinist_user:Iaaasi_and_his_MEAT_PUPPET:_Irji2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.146.60 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree they are a problem. We'll have to await the outcome of the SPI request. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ICA stones

Its amazing how, an mainstream academic ( which he probably is ) can write what nonsense he pleases, relying on old, outdated books. The ICA Stones page is 100% sceptic, seen from only one veiwpoint, and does not bring upp ALL information related to the subject. It's not what wikipedia should be.

Anyone, openminded, with knowledgde in the ICA stones, know about the recent examinations, and lets the evidence speak for itself.

Refusing to accept confirmed discoveries, confirmed examinations and confirmed evidence is so stupid ( yes, that's the right word - aimed at the author of that page ), and typical for old men with old diplomas.

Maybe i was naive to believe that i could write some truth here.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellmann (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

KF

I've restored this because of:

  • Briant & Kuhrt are without any doubt highest authorities of Achaemenid history today.
  • Despite Staszek Lem claim "text says nothing of the book", two authors clearly refers to Lendering's review of Farrokh's work and anti-Jona attacks.
  • I removed Vashakidze's anti-review called by Briant & Kuhrt as "excessively aggressive responses", that author(s?) aren't related to Achaemenid studies.

I'm not suprised by Lem's changes because considering first edits he strongly believes Farrokh is an "expert in history". Assuming good faith, definitely not the first one who thinks before Shadows there were only Herodotus and Wikipedia. --109.165.241.212 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples‎

Doug, can you glance at List of indigenous peoples‎? Maunus and I differ on this (I think Palestinians might qualify, but only for argument's sake. I have no intention of editing that in), but not on, I should think, the fact that the pastiche of WP:OR there fails all standards for inclusion. I removed it not out of dislike. It's just wholly untrue that Israelites figure anywhere in the academic literature as an indigenous people, the word 'indigenous' throughout referring only to contemporary ethnic groups. What can be done when stuff that is so wildly inappropriate has the backing of numbers? Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tricky. There is a good argument that says that the original Israelites were a part of the indigenous people we know as Canannites, so I guess you could argue that without that being in the section it isn't justified. Or you could challenge it on the basis of the lead - do any of those groups say they are indigenous? Sorry, I see this is covered at the talk page. I'd go to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree its tricky - our problem is that its clearly still a debate - John R. Barlett (1997). Archaeology & Biblical Interpretation. Psychology Press. pp. 20–30. ISBN 978-0-415-14114-7..Moxy (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I think we need to focus on who calls the contemporary Israelites indigenous - particularly among the groups mentioned in the lead - which of them does? Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Indigenous to where? I think there's a fair amount of understanding that a congeries of clan, tribal lineages and nomadic groups speaking varieties of semitic dialects or languages eventually coalesced into the Ivri/Hebrew/Israelites, that they came from all over that area, and distinctions between them and 'Canaanites' are impossible to make. What troubles me is the genetic argument. You don't have to read Avshalom Zoosmann-Diskin's papers (Ashkenazi are of European origins) or Paul Wexler on linguistics (Ashkenazi are of ethnic Iranian origins), to name just one of several theories, to see how tricky this faddish use of highly partial genetic snippets is. Have a look at Nadia Abu El-Haj The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 pp.124ff., for example. In these areas, we should be describing the variety of theories, not fixed conclusions. The Israelite/Jewish people representation there is WP:OR, using a strategem of imposed names on a putatively undying invariable demographic reality to connect the former with the later. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The history of the modern country of Israel and its inhabitants would seem to render the argument anachronistic and incorrect. And genetics would appear to be less a determining factor than religion, insofar as both Israelis and Palestinians share much in common in terms of genetics here.
But what about the question of the Palestinians? Do any of the relevant organizations list them as indigenous?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Wow, it didn't take more than 15 minutes for that edit to get reverted. I've conducted a brief online search for UN references, and found the following pdf file includes references to both Bedouin Arabs and Palestinian Arabs in Israel: see first two references on p.1, 151

Here is the text:

Page 1:

For centuries, since the time of their colonization, conquest or occupation, indigenous peoples have documented histories of resistance, interface or cooperation with states, thus demonstrating their conviction and determination to survive with their distinct sovereign identities. Indeed, indigenous peoples were often recognized as sovereign peoples by states, as witnessed by the hundreds of treaties concluded between indigenous peoples and the governments of the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others.

Page 151:

List of references

-Abu-Saad, Ismael. 2003. “Bedouin Arabs in Israel. Between the Hammer and the Anvil: Education as a Foundation for Survival and Development” in The Future of Indigenous Peoples: Strategies for Survival and Development, ed. Duane Champagne and Ismael Abu-Saad. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA American Indian Studies Center.

-Abu-Saad, Ismael. 2006. “Identity Formation among Indigenous Youth in Majority-Controlled Schools: Palestinian Arabs in Israel” in Indigenous Education and Empowerment: International Perspectives, ed. Ismael Abu-Saad and Duane Champagne. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

I didn't come across a list and don't have any more time to search, but here is a link to the library page for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: library

There is also relevant discussion on the article Talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Doug, I've placed an RfC on the Talk page with respect to the above-mentioned UN document and a related webpage of the UNPFII. Any thoughts? It's a direct tactic that cuts through a lot of the somewhat superfluous issues being raised, but it could be effective, as the documents and webpage are official.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Hamnavoe (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at The Anonymouse's talk page.
Message added 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just in case... The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talamachusee

Talamachusee (talk · contribs) Looks who is back. More nonsense with the Creeks in Georgia and the Maya, see [28] and [29]. Heiro 17:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Puntland Democratisation

hello,

I have noticed you done some editing for Puntland democratisation and reverted, specially the Fourth political organisation, you need to read the sentences before that, it clearly indicated two Party has been established in Bosaaso on the 4th of December, the second party was established and a day later i.e the 5h of December the 3rd political party was established which makes the new party the Fourth party in Puntland.

Cheers

Abdirisak (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, noted that in a new edit summary - would have been a null edit but there were a couple of minor things I thought needed doing, eg remove prominent and spell out an abbreviation. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Any objections if I post a close request to AN for the Bedson RfC/U?

I would like to comment there that I think a ban is justified, but I don't know if that's inappropriate at the closing request. Or would it be better for you to do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you go ahead as I'm off to bed in a few minutes. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock Bittergrey

Please unblock Bittergrey. He meant well. Dark windows of the soul (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Dark windows of the soul. I'm not sure what policy to cite beyond WP:UCS; there doesn't seem to be any good faith in his edits, merely an attempt to annoy me personally. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I am trying in good faith to improve Wikipedia. WLU's accusations against me are without foundation. When he asked me to stop asking him his real name, I stopped. If what I'm doing now is wrong, I'll stop that too. Dark windows of the soul (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do stop. And Bittergrey will have to ask to be unblocked himself. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

help

http://so.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Madaxweyneyaashii <--< No good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:SomaliaPres <--< Good help me if possible --abshir (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you removing links to presidents of Somalia? What help do you want? Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

archaeology project

Hi Doug, thanks for your welcome. Are you in charge of Wikipedia archaeology? It says, "Join this project! Add yourself to the list, and add the userbox to your page, to advertise the project to people who happen to pass by." This all sounds great, except I'm just not sure how to join the project, add myself to the list or add the userbox to my page. Sten B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenen Bijl (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Either_include_both_Jews_and_Palestinians.2C_or_neither

Evildoer187 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I really appreciate your work. Editor2020 (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Crop circle article

Please see the sections "The Doug and Dave scam" and "Review of recent deletions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crop_circle
You have technically committed vandalism by reinstating misleading and/or false information, thereby compromising the integrity of Wikipedia.

Stochastikos (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The first comment on my talk was over two years ago. The second was because I failed to provide comments recently, which I then remedied.

My edits can't really be called bold, as it was the removal of false and/or misleading information that compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Please direct me to where it says I need consensus to remove false and/or misleading information.

To cite the link you did provide:
"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."

Your reasoning for the revision is not valid: "major changes watering down skeptic view, in particular removing Doug & Dave in a number of place"

Removing mostly redundant information is not watering down, neither is removing false and/or misleading information.

Stochastikos (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples article

Doug, would you please take a look at the editing on the Indigenous peoples page by Crock81 and the corresponding discussion on the Talk page under his "Cleanup-up notice". He has created that as a means to push POV emphasizing indigeneity of "non-discriminated peoples", or something to that effect. Under the United Nations Subsection of the Definitions section of the page he has insisted on including a POV paragraph that is unsourced and seems to blatantly fall under WP:OR, and he has reverted my edits even of formatting. I have tried to reason with him to no avail, and I'm sending you and EdJohnston this request in accordance with the dispute resolution guidelines, hoping to avoid having to file a request for mediation/arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Following comment from Ed:
Here is the link to what amounts to the conflicted portion

actual Diff

though the edit I carried out prior to that was partly motivated by the poor quality and apparently deliberate omissions of more recent UNPFII publications in his still further preceding edit.

base Diff

When I made that edit, I didn't notice that the trailing paragraph was WP:OR that might have a POV angle to it and was unsourced, so I went back and edited that and added bulleting to the list in the blockquote.
After discussing the issue on the Talk page, I then added the heading from the source containing the bulleted list, and he subsequently reverted that edit, which consisted solely of re-formatting of the list (bulleting) and adding the heading from the source.

last Diff

Since that he has made 13 additional edits, many very minor, but I haven't looked at them.
I think that the discussion on the Talk page may be helpful in providing a frame of reference for the gist of what is is aiming to accomplish.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Certainly it looks as though the para you removed is probably unsourceable and OR. Wrote this hours ago but having trouble saving it. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a concern

It appears that the UNISPAL document relating to Palestinian indigeneity is an official UN document, whereas the other document included in that post seems to pertain exclusively to Bedouin Arabs. However, I am still wary of including them in the list of indigenous peoples without also including Jews, as they too meet all of the same criteria in the definition listed at the top of the articles talk page (see below), and face very real threats regarding preservation of their culture, identity, and way of life in their historic homeland (which is Palestine, as consensus would have it), even if the UN doesn't currently recognize it officially for reasons we cannot ascertain for ourselves. The ramifications of implementing these edits run the risk of violating WP:Neutral Point of View provisions by implying that Jews are purely a foreign, colonial presence with no historical ties to the region, which is demonstrably false and flies directly in the face of neutrality and facts, and is something that we on Wikipedia are compelled to avoid. This is especially relevant when one considers that there has been, and still is, a Jewish minority in what is now recognized as the Palestinian state before the initial wave of Jewish returnees to Palestine, as the UN document in question has recognized. Moreover, from what I can gather based on what is written at the top of the articles talk page, we are only using the definition of indigenous peoples posited by the UN as a blueprint for deciding for ourselves who to include. In that sense, it would appear that some editors (namely Ubikwit) are trying to shift the goalpost from "meeting the criteria for the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", which is problematic in its own right. From the intro to the article itself...

"Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of"."

As you can see, there is some criteria that they, along with Jews, do not meet (not being a national entity, for one). I feel that if the sole determining factor for deciding who to include on this list is "recognition as such by an official UN body" (which is obviously not what it says at the top of the articles talk page, nor have we used it as a basis when including any other group), that we should make that clear in the intro paragraph to the article, and adjust the rest of the article accordingly. At least this way, we can help to curtail further controversy and biased interpretations. Do I have a strong POV? Yes. However, I can assure you that I am acting in good faith and I'm only trying to find a reasonable solution and to make sure that any edit we do implement is clear, concise, balanced, and maintains a purely neutral point of view.

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is WP:rX.
Message added 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you left me feedback on the reversion you made. Your comments made sense, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.151.233 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the like function?

I found myself looking for the "like this" button when I saw your revert on Guadalupe in my watchlist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone seems to have stolen it. I wish they'd quit messing about. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Details about the murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

Why is Vanguard News Network not reliable to cite? It's a news network, news networks are made to provide accurate and reliable information to the public. 173.51.128.50 (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's a racist website, not a genuine newsnetwork. If you saw a site called flyingsaucernewsnetwork would you argue that was a reliable source?. You can ask at WP:RSN but you'll be told the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I know that it is a racist network, but I always thought that Alex Linder bases his beliefs in his articles on facts. Was I mistakened? Is he actually making up fictional articles? I thought I was just including the facts in the article and interpreting them from a neutral point of view. 173.51.128.50 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doug Weller. You have new messages at Shrike's talk page.
Message added 17:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Richard Dawkins

Hi,

Going thru the archives of the Dawkins' talk page, it seems like you were the person who redirected criticism of Richard Dawkins to the main article. I therefore invite you to attend the ongoing discussion at the talk page.--User 99 119 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

sock?

Doug, could you please check the IP address connected to the following edit: (cur | prev) 16:03, 21 December 2012‎ Ubikwit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (372,101 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Undid revision 529129347 by 72.74.59.228 (talk) current RfC may take some time, if anything, a longer duration is required at present) (undo)

I reverted that as suspicious considering the status of the current discussion, and Evildoer187 re-reverted that, restoring the edit made by the IP.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


Sorry, I can't do that, only a handful of users have CU status. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I see. Please feel free to delete this and the above comment from yout Season's tidings section.
Happy Hoidays!.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Message de Jean-François Monteil

Merci. Allez sur mon site: mindnewcontinentfrenchcorner. Cordialement. Monteil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.163 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I did, but I don't know why you wanted me to look there. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(84.100.243.163 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)) Dear Dougweller, thanks for the prompt answer. I wanted you to recognize in my FR MNCs the contributions reverted by you. 84.100.243.163 and Jean-François Monteil are one and the same person. So, I can't see where a problem of copyright could lie. Anyway, I'm glad to be in contact with you. My advice: visit my sites from time to time. My knols meet with a certain success. Here are some useful links: KNOLmnc Liste et classification des KNOLs mnc, KNOLmnc 0 Sites and topics, KNOLmnc Diffusion. I think I've got the formula of strict implication. These days, the probability is becoming certainty. Yours. JFM

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_25&oldid=1148816601"